Skip to main content

Full text of "The Monroe Doctrine"

See other formats


:! 1 1! hi! 

■■^^■■■H I 1 M ll1 '''h 



^J/L-cr-isc^i^O L^t^t^C^ 



& -o^ 









Copyright, 1904, 
By T. B. Edgington. 

All rig/its reserved 



Among a self-governing people it is indispensable that their 
ruling millions should possess an accurate knowledge of the 
principles and policies of their government. That which is 
written in their statutes is easily mastered ; but their unwritten 
laws, which are traditional in character, like all other forms of 
tradition, ultimately become a matter of great uncertainty and 
doubt. They are colored and shaped into all sorts of fantastic 
and variegated forms by the medium through which they are 

jJThe object of this work is to rescue the people, in some 
small degree, from the perils of this distortion of the unwritten 
foreign policy of the republic. 1 

Its object does not rest on this alone; its further purpose is 
to point out the new questions which are arising and requir- 
ing solution under this policy, to the end that we may act the 
part of the good Samaritan to the sick man of Latin America, 
and at the same time maintain our cordial and friendly rela- 
tions with all the European powers, relations which sometimes 
become strained and alienated through a misunderstanding of 
each other's purposes. 

This leads up to an examination of the relations which Latin 
America sustains to our foreign policy, and to an exposition, 
in somewhat unmeasured terms, of the heresies which have 


taken refuge under the shadow of the Monroe Doctrine, as 

the vermin were found to have collected under the foliage of 

Jonah's gourd vine, when it withered. 


Memphis, Tenn., March 6, 1904. 


Chapter Page 

I. The Holy Alliance i 

II. The Holy Alliance and the New World ... 6 

III. Metternich, Castlereagh, Canning 4 8 

IV. Panama Congress 55 

V. British Honduras 60 

VI. Bay Islands 65 

VII. Clayton and the Monroe Doctrine 68 

VIII. Clayton and Bulwer 76 

IX. Opinions 79 

X. Origin of our Foreign Policy 84 

XI. Colonization 95 

XII. Party Platforms 105 

XIII. Isolation 108 

XIV. Coaling and Supply Stations in 

XV. The Empire of Maximilian 119 

XVI. The Venezuelan Boundary 128 

XVII. Germany and Brazil 133 

XVIII. Germany and Denmark 141 

XIX. The Isthmian Canal , 144 

XX. The Recrudescence of Revolutions 159 

XXI. The Hague Tribunal 179 

XXII. Second International Conference of American 

States 206 

XXIII. Effect of the Two Conventions 213 

XXIV. The Calvo Doctrine 218 


Chapter Page 

XXV. Calvo Doctrine; Public Policy 228 

XXVI. Calvo Doctrine; Reciprocal Obligations . . . 245 

XXVII. Calvo Doctrine, Anarchy 248 

XXVIII. Monroe and Calvo Combined 261 

XXIX. Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Venezuela . . . 267 

XXX. Factional Arbitration, Federation, Receiverships 290 

XXXI. General Observations 302 






As soon as it was known that the grand army under Napo- 
leon had been buried in the snowdrifts of Russia, after the 
burning of Moscow, a change of sentiment in Europe took 
place. Signs of a general breaking away of the States in 
alliance with France were manifested. Events went from 
bad to worse for the cause of Napoleon, until Alexander of 
Russia, Frederick William III, and the generals of the 
allies entered Paris with their victorious armies on March 
31, 1814. 

Negotiations followed which resulted in the abdication of 
the throne by Napoleon and the accession of Louis XVIII 
after an exile in foreign lands of twenty-three years. Napo- 
leon was granted a pension of two millions of francs, and 
the sovereignty of the Island of Elba in the Mediterranean, 
where he took up his abode. Nearly everything that France 
had achieved was ruthlessly torn away, and her territory was 
reduced to the limits which were recognized at the beginning 
of the revolution. 

After ten months spent in the apparently quiet nominal 
sovereignty of Elba, Napoleon quitted the island on February 
26, 181 5, and landed at Cannes, which created a sensation in 
France such as has never been known before nor since in her 
eventful history. 

Everywhere the old soldiers of the republic and empire 
rose up and followed Napoleon. Marshal Ney, who had 
been made a peer of France by Louis XVIII, promised that 
monarch to put Napoleon in an iron cage and bring him to 
Paris. He went out at the head of an army to accomplish 



this mission, but fired by his old enthusiasm, threw himself 
into the arms of Napoleon and followed him to Paris, while 
Louis XVIII and his court fled to Belgium. 

The events which followed culminated in the defeat of 
Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo, and his subsequent 
banishment to the Island of St. Helena. On July 6, 1815, 
the allied armies of Europe re-entered the city of Paris, and 
two days afterwards Louis XVIII was again seated on the 
throne of France. The settlement of the affairs of Europe 
was made on about the same terms as had been fixed by the 
treaty of Paris during the preceding year. 

Alexander I entered Paris on July 11, 181 5, and contrib- 
uted much by his influence to the settlement which was 
agreed upon over the ruins of France. Having prepared 
and completed a document known as the Holy Alliance on 
September 26, 181 5, he submitted it to the other European 
powers for approval. Francis of Austria and Frederick Wil- 
liam of Prussia signed it at once. All the European powers 
except England and Rome became parties to the league. It 
has been said that France refused to become a party to it. 
This is a mistake, for Louis XVIII signed the instrument 
with great alacrity. The document known as the Holy Alli- 
ance was published to the world in February, 18 16. 

The leading principle of the Alliance was that henceforth 
the political order of the world should be directed by the 
doctrines and practices of Christianity, and these doctrines 
and practices were, of course, to be decided by the creeds 
and methods of the parties to the compact. The world was 
to be subject to an orthodox despotism. It was simply an 
appeal to religion to support and confirm the existing dynas- 
ties of Europe, and to remand them to the good old paternal 
plan of mediaeval government. One article of this compact 
provided that no member of the family of Bonaparte should 
ever occupy a European throne. Another article bound the 
parties to maintain and defend the various dynastic houses, 
and to combine for the suppression of rebellions and 


The meaning of all this was that political liberty was to be 
crushed out. United in this compact, but without the assent 
of Great Britain, these monarchs in the name of Christianity 
entered upon the government of the world. The Holy Alli- 
ance suppressed revolutions in Naples and Piedmont, and 
restored absolute monarchy in Spain. 

The sovereign parties to the compact held a congress at 
Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. Alexander I virtually presided. 
In 1820 another congress or convention was held at Troppau, 
another at Laibach in 182 1, and another at Verona in 1822. 

Napoleon had put his brother Joseph Bonaparte on the 
throne of Spain, and under his rule the supreme legislative 
power was placed in the hands of a single national assembly, 
and effective checks were devised to restrict the power of the 

The government of Spain had been changed from an abso- 
lute into a limited monarchy. Ferdinand VII was restored 
to the throne of Spain in March, 1814. He found his power 
curtailed by the changes mentioned, which were made during 
the reign of Joseph Bonaparte. At the congress of Verona, 
in October, 1822, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia agreed 
upon armed intervention in Spain in spite of the protests of 
England. The demand was made on Spain by the Holy Alli- 
ance to alter her constitution and to grant greater liberty to 
the king, a demand which was peremptorily refused, and a 
French army 100,000 strong entered Spain in April, 1823, 
under the Duke of Angouleme, and absolutism was restored. 

The South American colonies had taken advantage of 
Napoleon's conquests of Spain to establish their independ- 
ence. The Holy Alliance did not stop with the restoration 
of absolutism in Spain, but it took under consideration the 
question of restoring to her the South American colonies, 
whose independence had been recognized by the United 
States, but not by any European power. The Monroe mes- 
sage was the outgrowth of this condition of affairs, in 
which England stood alone against the schemes of the Holy 


The real author of the Holy Alliance was Madame de 
Kriidener, the wife of Baron de Kriidener, a Russian diplo- 
matist. Her father, the Baron Weitinghoff, was one of the 
wealthiest proprietors in Livonia in Russia. She had a repu- 
tation for wit, beauty, and intelligence, and became a bril- 
liant social favorite at the various European capitals where 
her husband was the accredited ambassador of Russia. She 
separated from him and located in Paris in 1803 to further 
her literary schemes as a novelist. Later in life, she devoted 
herself solely to the conversion of sinners and the consola- 
tion of the wretched. Her doctrines were a strange blending 
of romanticism and mysticism. They were not in harmony 
with either the forms or creeds of any Christian communion. 
At Paris, in 1814, she held religious assemblies at her resi- 
dence, which were frequented by the most important per- 
sonages. Her spiritual exaltation assumed the character of 
prevision, and in a letter she foretold in vague terms the 
escape of Napoleon from Elba, his triumphant return to 
Paris, and a second exile of the Bourbons. This was com- 
municated to Alexander I, who became much interested in 
her. He met her at Heilbron in May, 181 5, accompanied 
her to Heidelberg, the headquarters of the allies, and after 
the battle of Waterloo went with her to Paris. 

While at Heidelberg, Alexander was a frequent visitor at 
Madame de Kriidener's cottage, where they read and ex- 
pounded the Scriptures together, and the religious tendencies 
of the ruler were fanned into a flame of enthusiasm by her 

Madame de Kriidener's drawing-rooms in Paris were costly 
and brilliant, and her guests were most distinguished, not 
the least of whom was her friend Alexander I, Czar of 

The principal topic of conversation at her levees was the 
restoration of peace and the terms upon which prostrate 
France should be permitted to resume her place among the 
States of Europe. Madame de Kriidener advocated a liberal 
policy toward France. She was supported in this by the in- 


fluence and importunities of Madame Recamier, the Duchess 
of Duras and d'Escar, and Benjamin Constant. She sur- 
rounded the czar with the most brilliant and seductive per- 
sonages of whom France could boast, and placed before the 
impressible Alexander her exalted ideas of absolute justice, 
greatness of soul and forgiveness for offences, the universal 
brotherhood of man and the fraternal relation of States. The 
Holy Alliance was one of the results of the powerful influ- 
ence exerted by her upon Alexander, and in deference to her 
teachings, the czar was the least exacting in his demands of 
all the allied powers. In these interviews between Alexander 
and Madame de Kriidener, religion and politics were blended, 
and the written instrument forming the Holy Alliance was a 
mere digest of their views. This was written by Alexander, 
and is said to have been submitted to her for revision. Had 
there been no Madame de Kriidener there would probably 
have been no Holy Alliance. She was sincere in her mys- 
ticism and in her apostolic labors, and at the time of her 
death, in 1824, she was engaged with Princess Galatzin in 
attempting to found a colony of her disciples in the Crimea. 
Her optimistic views concerning the brotherhood of States 
as well as of man, did not have a happy outcome in the Holy 
Alliance, for in its practical operation it became in substance 
a stupendous conspiracy against the liberties of mankind. 



With the advent of the year 1823, the affairs of the United 
States had practically fallen into the hands of the sons of the 
founders of the republic. John Ouincy Adams was Secretary 
of State, and Richard Rush, a statesman of note and son of 
Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of In- 
dependence, was minister to England. 

In July, 1818, Lord Castlereagh had told Mr. Rush, in a 
conversation at the house of the French ambassador, that 
England had been requested by Spain to mediate with the 
co-operation of the Holy Alliance between her and her re- 
bellious colonies. 1 Rush answered that the United States 
would take part in no intervention for peace, if the basis 
were not the independence of the colonies. Castlereagh 
was Foreign Secretary of Great Britain. He was dominated/ 
by Prince Metternich, Premier of Austria, and consequently} 
had been won over to the schemes of the Holy Alliance. It 
was expected that he would bring in Great Britain as a mem- 
ber of it, contrary to the general wish of the people of that 

Lord Castlereagh was arranging his business to attend the 
Congress of the Holy Alliance at Verona, when on August 
12, 1822, in a fit of lunacy, he committed suicide by opening 
the carotid artery with a pen-knife. George Canning was 
then made Foreign Secretary to fill the vacancy caused by his 
death. The new secretary was in sympathy with the masses 
of the people of England, who were opposed to the Holy 

The best relations had not existed between the former and 
the present secretary, for they had fought a duel in 1809. 

1 Von Hoist's "Constitutional History of the United States," Vol. I, page 419. 



Canning went into office to reverse and set aside all the for- 
eign policies of his unpopular predecessor. He was a man 
of greater breadth than Castlereagh and a better diplomat. 

He surveyed the world and saw a method of detaching 
Russia and France from the Holy Alliance, and thereby 
saving Great Britain from being crushed between its upper 
and nether millstones, and he succeeded. He saw an oppor- 
tunity to thwart France in her hope that by reconquering 
Spanish America there would be a large division of the con- 
quered territory which would be reclaimed and subdued, and 
turned over to her. In this he was also successful. He 
knew of the immense commerce which had been diverted 
from Spain to Great Britain in consequence of the revolt of 
the Spanish American colonies, and desired that conditions 
should continue so as to enable his own country to retain 
this vast trade. He likewise succeeded in this. In order 
to accomplish these vast undertakings, unmoved by any love 
or regard for the Republic of the United States or the Spanish 
American republics, or republican institutions anywhere, 
he approached Richard Rush, our minister to Great Britain, 
and interviewed him in regard to the alleged proposed opera- 
tions of the Holy Alliance in the Western Hemisphere. 

The first communications in writing by Canning to Rush 

are marked by him " Private and Confidential " and read as 

follows : 

Foreign Office, Aug. 20, 1823. 

My dear Sir, — Before leaving Town I am desirous of 
bringing before you in a more distinct, but still in an unoffi- 
cial and confidential shape, the question which we shortly 
discussed the last time that I had the pleasure of seeing 

Is not the moment come when our Governments might 
understand each other as to the Spanish American Colo- 
nies? And if we can arrive at such an understanding, would 
it not be expedient for ourselves, and beneficial for all the 
world, that the principles of it should be clearly settled and 
plainly avowed ? 

For ourselves we have no disguise. 




1. We conceive the recovery of the Colonies by Spain to 
be hopeless. 

2. We conceive the question of the recognition of them, 
as Independent States, to be one of time and circumstances. 

3. We are, however, by no means disposed to throw any 
impediment in the way of an arrangement between them and 
the mother country by amicable negotiations. 

4. We aim not at the possession of any portion of them 

5. We could not see any portion of them transferred to 
any other Power, with indifference. 

If these opinions and feelings are, as I firmly believe them 
to be, common to your Government with ours, why should 
we hesitate mutually to confide them to each other; and to 
declare them in the face of the world ? 

If there be any European Power which cherishes other 
projects, which looks to a forcible enterprise for reducing 
the Colonies to subjugation, on the behalf or in the name 
of Spain; or which meditates the acquisition of any part of 
them to itself, by cession or by conquest; such a declaration 
on the part of your government and ours would be at once 
the most effectual and least offensive mode of intimating our 
joint disapprobation of such projects. 

It would at the same time put an end to all the jealousies 
of Spain with respect to her remaining Colonies, and to agi- 
tation which prevails in those colonies, an agitation which it 
would be but humane to allay; being determined (as we are) 
not to profit by encouraging it. 

Do you conceive that under the power which you have 
received recently, you are authorized to enter into negotia- 
tion and to sign any Convention upon this subject? Do you 
conceive, if that be not within your competence, you could 
exchange with me ministerial notes upon it? 

Nothing could be more gratifying to me than to join with 
you in such a work, and I am persuaded, there has seldom, 
in the history of the world, occurred an opportunity when so 
small an effort of two friendly Governments might produce 
so unequivocal a good and prevent such extensive calamities. 

I shall be absent from London but three weeks at the ut- 



most; but never so far distant but that I can receive and 
reply to any communication within three or four days. 

I have the honor to be, my dear sir, with great respect and 
esteem, your obedient and faithful servant, 

(Signed) George Canning. 1 

R. Rush, Esqr. 

Liverpool, August 23, 1823. 

My dear Sir, — Since I wrote to you on the 20th, an 
additional motive has occurred for wishing that we might 
be able to come to some understanding on the part of our 
respective Governments on the subject of my letter; to come 
to it soon, and to be at liberty to announce it to the world. 

It is this. I have received notice, but not such a notice as 
imposes upon me the necessity of any immediate answer or 
proceeding — that so soon as the military objects in Spain 
are achieved (of which the French expect, how justly I know 
not, a very speedy achievement) a proposal will be made for 
a Congress, or some less formal concert and consultation 
especially upon the affairs of Spanish America. 

I need not point out to you all the complications to which 
this proposal, however dealt with by us, may lead. 

Pray receive this communication in the same confidence 
with the former; and believe me with great truth my dear 
sir, and esteem, your obedient and faithful servant, 

(Signed) Geo. Canning. 2 

R. Rush, Esqr. 

These two letters of Canning show that the initiatory steps 
which led up to the Monroe declaration were taken by Great 
Britain. There is a large mass of correspondence which is 
accessible and which bears more or less on the questions 
under consideration, but it is too voluminous to give in 
full. Therefore only such correspondence is here printed as 
gives a complete historical summary of the Monroe episode. 

The selected portion of these papers and this correspond- 
ence is as follows : 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 415, 416. 

2 Ibid., pages 416, 417. 



London, August 19, 1823. 

Sir, — When my interview with Mr. Canning on Saturday 
was about to close, I transiently asked him whether, notwith- 
standing the late news from Spain, we might not hope that 
the Spaniards would get the better of all their difficulties. 
I had allusion to the defection of Baltasteros, in Andalusia, 
an event seeming to threaten with new dangers the consti- 
tutional cause. His reply was general, importing nothing 
more than his opinion of the increased difficulties and dan- 
gers with which, undoubtedly, this event was calculated to 
surround the Spanish cause. 

Pursuing the topic of Spanish affairs, I remarked that 
should France ultimately effect her purposes in Spain, there 
was at least the consolation left, that Great Britain would 
not allow her to go farther and lay her hands upon the 
Spanish colonies, bringing them too under her grasp. I 
here had in my mind the sentiments promulgated upon this 
subject in Mr. Canning's note to the British Ambassador at 
Paris of the 31st of March, during the negotiations that pre- 
ceded the invasion of Spain. It will be recollected that the 
British government say in this note, that time and the course 
of events appear to have substantially decided the question 
of the separation of these colonies from the mother country, 
although their formal recognition as independent states by 
Great Britain might be hastened or retarded by external cir- 
cumstances, as well as by the internal condition of those 
new states themselves; and that as his Britannic majesty dis- 
claimed all intention of appropriating to himself the smallest 
portion of the late Spanish possessions in America he was 
also satisfied that no attempt would be made by France to 
bring any of them under her dominion, either by conquest, 
or by cession from Spain. 

By this we are to understand, in terms sufficiently distinct, 
that Great Britain would not be passive under such an at- 
tempt by France, and Mr. Canning, on my having referred 
to this note, asked me what I thought my government would 
say to go hand in hand with this, in the same sentiment; not, 


as he added, that any concert in action under it could become 
necessary between the two countries, but that the simple fact 
of our being known to hold the same sentiment would, he 
had no doubt, by its moral effect, put down the intention on 
the part of France, admitting that she should ever entertain 
it. This belief was founded, he said, upon the large share of 
the maritime power of the world which Great Britain and the 
United States shared between them, and the consequent in- 
fluence which the knowledge that they held a common opin- 
ion upon a question on which such large maritime interests, 
present and future, hung, could not fail to produce upon the 
rest of the world. 

I replied that in what manner my government would look 
upon such a suggestion, I was unable to say, but that I would 
communicate it in the same informal manner in which he 
threw it out. I said, however, that I did not think I should 
do so with full advantage, unless he would at the same time 
enlighten me as to the precise situation in which His Maj- 
esty's government stood at this moment in relation to those 
new states, and especially on the material point of their own 

He replied that Great Britain certainly never again in- 
tended to lend her instrumentality or aid, whether by medi- 
ation or otherwise, towards making up the dispute between 
Spain and her colonies; but that if this result could still be 
brought about, she would not interfere to prevent it. 

Upon my intimating that I had supposed that all idea of 
Spain ever recovering her authority over the colonies had 
long since gone by, he explained by saying that he did not 
mean to controvert that opinion, for he too believed that the 
day had arrived when all America might be considered as 
lost to Europe, so far as the tie of political dependence was 

All that he meant was that if Spain and the colonies should 
still be able to bring the dispute, not yet totally extinct be- 
tween them, to a close upon terms satisfactory to both sides, 
and which should at the same time secure to Spain commer- 
cial or other advantages not extended to other nations, that 
Great Britain would not object to a compromise in this spirit 


of preference to Spain. All that she would ask would be to 
stand upon as favored a footing as any other nation after 
Spain. Upon my again alluding to the improbability of the 
dispute ever settling down even upon this basis, he said that 
it was not his intention to maintain such a position, and that 
he had expressed himself as above rather for the purpose of 
indicating the feeling which this cabinet still had towards 
Spain in relation to the controversy, than of predicting 

Wishing, however, to be still more specifically informed, 
I asked whether Great Britain was at this moment taking any 
step, or contemplating any, which had reference to the rec- 
ognition of these states, this being the point in which we 
felt the chief interest. 

He replied that she had taken none whatever, as yet, but 
was upon the eve of taking one, not final, but preparatory, 
and which would still leave her at large to recognize or not, 
according to the position of events at a future period. The 
measure in question was to send out one or more individuals 
under authority from this government to South America, not 
strictly diplomatic, but clothed with powers in the nature of 
a commission of inquiry, and which in short, he described as 
analogous to those exercised by our commissioners in 1817; 
and that upon the result of this commission much might de- 
pend as to the ulterior conduct of Great Britain. I asked 
whether I was to understand that it would comprehend all 
the new states, or which of them ; to which he replied that, 
for the present, it would be limited to Mexico. 

Reverting to his first idea he again said that he hoped that 
France would not, should even events in the Peninsula be 
favorable to her, extend her views to South America for the 
purpose of reducing the colonies, nominally perhaps for Spain, 
but in effect to subserve ends of her own ; but that in case 
she should meditate such a policy, he was satisfied that the 
knowledge of the United States being opposed to it as well 
as Great Britain, could not fail to have its influence in check- 
ing her steps. In this way he thought good might be done 
by prevention, and peaceful prospects all round increased. 
As to the form in which such knowledge might be made to 


reach France, and even the other powers of Europe, he said 
in conclusion that that might probably be arranged in a man- 
ner that would be free from objection. 

I again told him that I would convey his suggestions to 
you for the information of the President, and impart to him 
whatever reply I might receive. My own inference rather is, 
that his proposition was a fortuitous one ; yet he entered into 
it I thought with some interest, and appeared to receive with 
a corresponding satisfaction the assurance I gave him that it 
should be made known to the President. I did not feel my- 
self at liberty to express any opinion unfavorable to it, and 
was as careful to give none in its favor. 

Mr. Canning mentioned to me at this same interview that 
a late confidential dispatch which he had seen from Count 
Nesselrode to Count Lieven, dated, I think, in June, con- 
tained declarations respecting the Russian ukase relative to 
the northwest coast that were satisfactory; that they went 
to show that it would probably not be executed in a manner 
to give cause of complaint to other nations, and that, in 
particular, it had not yet been executed in any instance 
under orders issued by Russia subsequently to its first 

I have the honor to remain, with very great respect, your 
obedient servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 

Honorable John Quincy Adams, 
Secretary of State. 


London, September 8th, 1823. 

Sir, — I yesterday received another confidential note from 
Mr. Canning, dated the thirty-first of August, a copy of 
which I have the honor to enclose herewith for the Presi- 
dent's information. 

From this note it would appear that Mr. Canning is not 
prepared to pledge this government to an immediate recog- 
nition of the independence of the South American States. 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 412 to 415. 


I shall renew to him a proposition to this effect when we 
meet ; but should he continue to draw back from it, I shall 
on my part not act upon the overtures contained in his first 
note, not feeling myself at liberty to accede to them in the 
name of my government, but upon the basis of an equivalent. 
This equivalent as I now view the subject could be nothing 
less than the immediate and full acknowledgment of those 
states, or some of them, by Great Britain. 

I shall send this dispatch by this evening's mail to Liver- 
pool, and have reason to hope that it will go in a ship that 
sails on the eighth, whereby there will have been not a 
moment's delay in putting you in possession of all the cor- 
respondence that has passed between Mr. Canning and me, 
or that now seems likely to pass, upon this delicate subject. 
I cannot help thinking, however, that its apparent urgency 
may, after all, be lessened by the turn which we may yet 
witness in affairs, military and political, in Spain. 

I have the honor to remain with very great respect, your 
obedient servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 

Honorable John Quincy Adams, 
Secretary of State. 


London, Sept. 15th, 1823. 

Dear Sir, — Mr. Canning was to have returned from his 
country excursion on the nth instant, but I have not yet 
heard if he has got back. In the meantime I am giving 
myself up to investigations which may the better prepare 
me for taking in hand the various subjects which I have 
been instructed to arrange by negotiation with this govern- 
ment. I continue to feel their importance, and can only 
again promise a diligent and faithful attention to them all. 

I shall expect to receive an invitation to an interview from 
Mr. Canning very shortly after he does return. The topic of 
Spanish American affairs will doubtless be resumed in our 
conversations, and it is my intention to urge upon him the 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, page 417. 


immediate and unequivocal recognition of those new states, | 
by Great Britain. Upon no other footing whatever shall I 
feel warranted in acceding to the proposals he has made to 
me. I shall continue to receive in a conciliatory manner his 
further overtures, should he meditate any; but I am bound ( 
to own, that I shall not be able to avoid, at bottom, some 
distrust of the motives of all such advances to me, whether 
directly or indirectly, by this government, at this particular 
juncture of the world. 

As regards the principles of traffic, and especially as re- 
gards the whole range of her foreign trade, we have, it is 
true, witnessed of late on the part of this nation an approach 
to more liberality than has governed her heretofore. It is 
possible that she may go farther in this policy; a policy irre- 
sistibly recommended, and, as she will not scruple herself to 
admit, forced upon her, by the changing circumstances of the 
commercial world. But, as regards the principles of politi- 
cal freedom, whether in relation to herself or other states, 
we shall not find it easy to perceive as yet any such favorable 
alteration in her conduct. Even if there be indications of a 
coming change in this latter line too, the motives of it are 
not at all of a nature to challenge our ready confidence and 
co-operation. We have seen her wage a war of twenty years 
at a cost of treasure and blood incalculable, in support of the 
independence of other states (as she said) when that inde- 
pendence was threatened by a movement proceeding from the 
people of France. We have seen her at the close of that 
contest abandoning the great interests of the people of other 
states, anxious apparently only about mon'archs and thrones. 
We have seen her at the same epoch become in effect a mem- 
ber of the Holy Alliance; though she could not in form, and 
continue to abet its principles up to the attack on Naples. 
Even then the separation was but partial, and, true to her 
sympathy with the monarchial principle, we find her faith 
pledged and her fleets ready to interpose not on any new 
extremity of wrong or oppression to the people of Naples, but 
on any molestation to the royal family. Since the present 
year set in, she has proclaimed and until now cautiously 
maintained her neutrality under an attack by France upon 


the independence of Spain, as unjust, as nefarious, and as 
cruel, as the annals of mankind can recount, this attack hav- 
ing been made upon the people of a country by a legitimate 
king, urged on by legitimate nobles. It is thus that Britain 
has been from the very beginning, positively or negatively, 
auxiliary to the evils with which this Alliance under the 
mask of Christianity has already affected the old, and is 
now menacing the new world. 

It is under this last stretch of ambition that she seems 
about to be roused, not, as we seemed forced to infer after 
all we have seen, from any objections to the arbitrary prin- 
ciples of the Combination, for the same men are still sub- 
stantially at the head of her affairs; but rather from the 
apprehensions which are now probably coming upon her, 
touching her own influence and standing through the for- 
midable and encroaching career of these continental poten- 
tates. She at last perceives a crisis likely to come on, 
bringing with it peril to her own commercial prospects on 
the other side of the Atlantic, and to her political sway in 
both hemispheres. Hence probably some of her recent and 
remarkable solicitudes. The former war of twenty years 
more than once shook her prosperity and brought hazards 
to her existence, though for the most part she was surrounded 
by allies. A second war of like duration with no ally for 
her in Europe might not have a second field of Waterloo for 
its termination. Such are the prospective dangers that pos- 
sibly do not escape her. 

The estimate which I have formed of the genius of this 
government, as well as of the characters of the men who 
direct, or who influence, all its operations, would lead me 
to fear that we are not as yet likely to witness any very 
material changes in the part which Britain has acted in the 
world for the past fifty years, when the cause of freedom has 
been at stake; the part which she acted in 1774 in America, 
which she has since acted in Europe, and is now acting in 
Ireland. I shall therefore find it hard to keep from my mind 
the suspicion that the approaches of her ministers to me at 
this portentous juncture for a concert of policy which they 
have not heretofore courted with the United States, are bot- 


tomed on their own calculations. I wish that I could sin- 
cerely see in them a true concern for the rights and liberties 
of mankind. Nevertheless, whatever may be the motive of 
these approaches, if they give promise of leading to good 
effects, effects which the United States from principle and 
from policy would delight to hail, I grant that a dispassion- 
ate and friendly ear should be turned to them, and such shall 
be my aim in the duties before me. 

In exhibiting the foregoing summary of the opinions which 
have been impressed upon me during my public residence in 
this quarter, I would not have it inferred that I intend they 
should comprehend the imputation of any sinister motives 
towards the United States, as peculiar to the British cabinet 
as it is now composed. I am so far from thinking so, that 
I believe the present cabinet to be as well disposed towards 
us permanently as any party in England, and at this moment 
more cordially so than any other party. I believe that if 
Earl Grey and his associates were to come into power to- 
morrow that we should not get better terms, if as good, in 
our approaching negotiation, should it come on, as from Mr. 
Canning and his associates. I would say the same thing of 
a cabinet to be composed of such men as Sir Francis Burdett 
and Mr. Hobhouse; and should it happen that Mr. Canning 
and Lord Liverpool ever become actively and publicly in 
their official places the advocates of a policy more intimate 
and friendly in all respects towards the United States than 
any hitherto adopted (a contingency not impossible, no mat- 
ter from what motives arising) I do not fear to predict that 
we shall in the end see the whigs and reformers the decided 
opponents of such a policy. As regards the beneficent prin- 
ciple of abolishing privateering, for example, I should little 
expect to see the whigs its patrons, since I have heard Sir 
! James Macintosh denounce it in Parliament since I have 
been here. 

I remain, dear sir, with the highest respect, your faithful 
and attached servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 420 to 422. 



London, Sept. 20th, 1823. 

Sir, — Notwithstanding what I have said of the public 
advantage which (as I have presumed to think and still 
think) would be likely to result from giving me a colleague 
in the negotiation should it all come on, I shall, of course, 
prepare myself to go through it alone should the President 
decide not to send one out. 

But as in your number seventy-two, I am informed that I 
shall probably have one in the event of Mr. Gallatin's return 
to Europe, or if a successor to him should be appointed, I 
have concluded to pause until I hear again from you on this 
point. In my conference with Mr. Canning the day before 
yesterday, our attention was so exclusively engrossed by the 
South American subject, that that of the negotiation was not 
mentioned by him. When, however, I had finished reading 
the reflections of your number seventy-two, I stated to him 
what you had written to me respecting a colleague, and that 
as I had therefore some reason to expect one, contingently, 
I should deem it proper and even incumbent upon me to wait 
a while until this contingency was decided, or until I heard 
something more of it from my government, as I probably 
should soon. 

I found Mr. Canning unprepared as yet to designate in 
what manner, or to what extent, the negotiations would be 
taken up by this government. He barely hinted at the num- 
ber and complication of the subjects which I had laid before 

Mr. Hughes reached London on the night of the sixth 
instant, and went away on the twelfth. His short stay, 
added to his own engagements as well as mine whilst he 
did stay, made it impossible for me to impart to him, in 
personal interviews, the various and voluminous matter em- 
braced in my late instructions. Nevertheless, understand- 
ing your request in this respect as contained in your number 
seventy-two, to mean, in its spirit, that he ought in some 
way to be afforded the opportunity by me of being made ac- 
quainted with it all, it appeared that nothing was left but to 


send him the instructions themselves. I accordingly trans- 
mitted them all, by a careful hand, to his lodgings, on the 
morning of the ninth instant, that they might remain by him 
for perusal at his own convenience, and they were all safely 
returned to me on the day of his departure. They consisted 
of your dispatches from number 64 to 72 inclusive, with all 
their enclosures. 

I have the honor to remain, etc., etc., 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 

Honorable John Quincy Adams, 
Secretary of State. 


London, October 2, 1823. 

Sir, — I had another interview with Mr. Canning on the 
twenty-sixth of last month, at Gloucester Lodge, his resi- 
dence a short distance from town. 

The immediate motive of his inviting me to this interview 
was to show me a dispatch which he had just received from 
Sir Charles Stewart, the British Ambassador at Paris, which 
had a bearing upon our late conference respecting Spanish 
America. It recounted a short conversation which he had 
with our charge d'affaires at that Court, Mr. Sheldon, the 
purport of which was, that Sir Charles having taken occasion 
to mention to Mr. Sheldon the projects of France and the 
Alliance upon Spanish America, Mr. Sheldon replied that 
the government of the United States was aware of them all, 
and disapproved of them. Mr. Canning, inferring that this 
reply of our charge d'affaires probably rested upon some in- 
structions or information from the government of the United 
States, also inferred that it might lend its aid towards my 
consent to his proposals of the 20th of August. He added, 
that the dispatch of Sir Charles Stewart had proceeded from 
no previous communication whatever from him (Mr. Can- 
ning) upon the subject, but had been altogether written on 
his own motion. 

I replied that what instructions or information the Lega- 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 419, 420. 


tion of the United States at Paris might have received upon 
this subject, I could not undertake to say with confidence; 
but that I scarcely believed any had reached it which 
were not common to me. That certainly I had none, other 
than those general instructions which I had already men- 
tioned to him, evidently never framed to meet the precise 
crisis which he supposed to be at hand respecting Spanish 
America, but under the comprehensive spirit of which I was 
nevertheless willing to go forward with him in his proposals 
upon the terms I had stated, in the hope of meeting this 

He now declared that this government felt great embar- 
rassments which had not been common to the United States, 
and asked whether I could not give my assent to his pro- 
posals on a promise by Great Britain of future acknowl- 
edgment. To this intimation I gave an immediate and 
unequivocal refusal. Further conversation passed between 
us, though chiefly of a desultory nature (it shall be reported 
at a future time), and the conference ended by his saying that 
he would invite me to another interview in the course of a 
few days. 

Having waited until now without hearing from him, I have 
concluded to write you thus much of what passed on the 26th, 
without more delay. It does not fall within any of my in- 
tentions to accede to Mr. Canning's overtures but on the 
basis of a previous and explicit acknowledgment of the new 
states by this government in manner as formal and ample in 
all respects as was done by the United States, whose act of 
acknowledgment will be the example upon which I shall 
stand. Even then, the guarded manner in which alone my 
consent will be given when I come to use the name of my 
government, will, I trust, be found to free the step from all 
serious exception on my part, should I finally take it. 

I cannot be unaware that in this whole transaction the 
British cabinet are striving for their own ends ; yet if these 
ends promise in this instance to be also auspicious to the 
safety and independence of all Spanish America, I persuade 
myself that we cannot look upon them but with approbation. 
England it is true has given her countenance and still does, 


to all the evils with which the Holy Alliance have afflicted 
Europe; but if she at length has determined to stay the 
career of their formidable and despotic ambition in the 
other hemisphere, the United States seem to owe it to 
all the policy and to all the principles of their system, 
to hail the effects whatever may be the motives of her 

Mr. Canning at the close of the above interview, expressed 
his desire that, in informing my government of his communi- 
cations to me, I would treat them as entirely confidential, as 
well the verbal as the written; the more so if no act resulted 
from them. That no act will result from them, is my present 

I have the honor to remain, with very great respect, your 
obedient servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 


London, Oct. ioth, 1823. 

S IR) — At the conference with Mr. Canning the day before 
yesterday, he said nothing of Spanish American affairs, ex- 
cept barely to remark at parting that he should send off con- 
suls to the new states very soon, perhaps in the course of this 
month. I asked whether consuls or commercial agents. He 
said he believed they might as well be called by the former 
name, as they would be invested with the powers and charged 
with the duties that belonged to the consular office. I asked 
if they would be received in that capacity by the governments 
between which and Great Britain no political or diplomatic 
relations had yet been formed. He said that this he did not 
know with any certainty; he rather supposed that they would 
be received. 

I saw him again at the foreign office yesterday, and he said 
not one single word relative to South America, although the 
occasion was altogether favorable for resuming the topic, had 
he been disposed to resume it. I therefore consider that all 
further discussion between us in relation to it is now at an 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 422 to 424. 


end. I had myself regarded the question involved in the dis- 
cussion as essentially changed by the arrival of the news of 
the convention of the 4th of July between Buenos Ayres and 
the commissioners from Spain; and of the complete annihi- 
lation of the remnant of the royal forces in Colombia under 
Morales, on the third of August, both which pieces of in- 
telligence have reached England since the twenty-sixth of 
September, the date of my last conference with Mr. Can- 
ning on the South American subject. 

The termination of the discussion between us may be 
thought somewhat sudden, not to say abrupt, considering 
how zealously as well as spontaneously it was started on his 
side. As I did not commence it, it is not my intention to 
revive it. If I had actually acceded to his proposals, I 
should have endeavored to have placed my conduct in a sat- 
isfactory light before the President. The motives of it 
would not, I flatter myself, have been disapproved. But as 
the whole subject is now before my government, and as I 
shall do nothing further in it without instructions, I should 
deem it out of place to travel into any new reasons in sup- 
port of a step not in fact taken. 

Mr. Canning not having acceded to my proposal, nor I to 
his, we stand as we were before his first advance to me, with 
the exception only of the light which the intervening discus- 
sion may be supposed to have shed upon the dispositions and 
policy of England in this important matter. It appears that, 
having ends of her own in view, she has been anxious to 
facilitate their accomplishment by invoking my auxiliary 
offices as the minister of the United States at this court; 
but as to the independence of the new states of America, for 
their own benefit, that this seems quite another question in 
her diplomacy. It is France that must not be aggrandized, 
not South America that must be made free. The former doc- 
trine may fitly enough return upon Britain as part of her per- 
manent political creed; but not having been taught to regard 
it as also incorporated with the foreign policy of the United 
States, I have forborne to give it gratuitous succor. I would 
have brought myself to minister to it incidentally on this oc- 
casion, only in return for a boon which it was in the power 


of Britain herself to have offered; a boon that might have 
closed the sufferings and brightened the prospects of those 
infant Republics emerging from the new world, and seem- 
ing to be connected as by a great moral chain with our own 

Whether any fresh explanations with France since the fall 
of Cadiz may have brought Mr. Canning to so full and sudden 
a pause with me, I do not know, and most likely never shall 
know if events so fall out that Great Britain no longer finds 
it necessary to seek the aid of the United States in further- 
ance of her schemes of counteraction as against France or 
Russia. That the British cabinet, and the governing portion 
of the British nation, will rejoice at heart in the downfall of 
the constitutional system in Spain, I have never had a doubt 
and have not now, so long as this catastrophe can be kept 
from crossing the path of British interests and British am- 
bition. This nation in its collective, corporate capacity has 
no more sympathy with popular rights and freedom now, than ] 
it had on the plains of Lexington in America; than it showed 
during the whole progress of the French revolution in Europe, 
or at the close of its first great act, at Vienna, in 181 5; than 
it exhibited lately at Naples in proclaiming a neutrality in 
all other events, save that of the safety of the royal family 
there; or, still more recently, when it stood aloof whilst 
France and the Holy Alliance avowed their intention of 
crushing the liberties of unoffending Spain, of crushing 
them too upon pretexts so wholly unjustifiable and enor- 
mous that English ministers, for very shame, were reduced 
to the dilemma of speculatively protesting against them, 
whilst they allowed them to go into full action. With a 
king in the hands of his ministers, with an aristocracy of 
unbounded opulence and pride, with what is called a house 
of commons constituted essentially by this aristocracy and 
always moved by its influence, England can, in reality, 
never look with complacency upon popular and equal rights, 
whether abroad or at home. She therefore moves in her 
natural orbit when she wars, positively or negatively, against 
them. For their own sakes alone, she will never war in their 


In the conference with Mr. Canning at Gloucester Lodge 
on the 26th of last month, he informed me that this govern- 
ment had sent out three commissioners to Mexico with ob- 
jects such as I have already stated in a former communication 
to you. Should the course and progress of events after their 
arrival in Mexico, render recognition by Great Britain advis- 
able, one of these commissioners was furnished, he said, with 
contingent credentials to be minister, another would be con- 
stituted secretary of Legation, and the third consul. He also 
said that these appointments, as well as those of commercial 
agents or consuls, whichsoever they might be, to go to the 
new states generally, would probably have the effect of in- 
viting in the end further approaches from them all, to an 
intercourse with Great Britain, which approaches, should 
they be made, might be met by Great Britain, according to 

It may perhaps afford room for conjecture what has led to 
the preference of Mexico over the other ex-colonies for such 
a provisionary diplomatic representation. I have heard a 
rumour, that an eye to some immediate advantage from the 
mines of that country has been the motive. Whilst the in- 
dependence of Mexico has been of more recent establish- 
ment, it seems not less true, that her advances to internal 
stability have been less sure than we have seen in some of 
the other new states. Mr. Canning himself in one of our 
conversations thought fit to select Mexico as affording a 
prominent illustration of interior disquiet. Whether then 
the above rumour is the key to this early preference, or the 
proximity of this new state to territories of the United States 
— or what considerations may have led to it, a little more 
time will probably disclose. It may rest on the mere fact 
of her greater population and riches. 

Mr. Canning also informed me that orders would be given 
by this government to its squadron in the West Indies, to 
protect the trade of British subjects (to the extent of mak- 
ing reprisals if necessary) with the Spanish colonies, in case 
the license for this trade which the Cortes granted in January 
last was not renewed. It will be recollected that the same 
decree of the Cortes in that month which settled, under a 


threat of reprisals, the British claims upon Spain for cap- 
tures, laid open the trade of the ultra marine provinces to 
Britain for ten years. This period of time being upon the 
eve of expiring, the intention of Britain is, to revive the 
orders for reprisals by her squadron, unless the time be 
extended. So much for a measure against Spain in her 
present extremity. It will next be seen that her ex-colonies 
come in for their share of this prompt and summary species 
of remedy of which Britain is setting other nations the ex- 
ample, for Mr. Canning also informed me that if the Colom- 
bian government did not make speedy reparation for the 
alleged aggression committed upon a British ship by the 
fort at Bocachica at the entrance of the bay of Carthagena, 
orders would be given to blockade that port. He remarked 
that the blockade would be confined merely to Bocachica as 
a measure of local redress, other satisfaction having been 
refused, and that it was intended that an explanation to this 
effect should be given to the government of Colombia, 
through a neutral minister residing at that government. 
He added that his wish was, that the minister of the United 
States should be the channel of communication. In the de- 
tail of circumstances that belong to this alleged aggression 
Mr. Canning did not go. From the account I have had of 
it from the Colombian minister in this city, Mr. Ravenga, 
I infer and believe that the offence was on the side of the 
British ship. 

The subject of blockade being mentioned, Mr. Canning 
asked me if I knew in what manner my government would 
be likely to view the turning off of our frigate by the French 
squadron from before Cadiz, with our ministers Mr. Nelson 
and Mr. Rodney on board. I said that I did not, and in 
turn asked him how England would act under similar cir- 
cumstances. His first reply consisted of an expression of 
his satisfaction that England had had the good fortune to 
escape from such a difficulty at this juncture, and that the 
question had fallen into such good hands as ours ! But next 
I asked, how a British blockading force would treat a neutral 
frigate under the same circumstances. He said he would be 
quite candid in his answer; that all things considered, it did 


not become England to reason down maritime or belligerent 
doctrines; that the case was an unusual one; he recollected 
in modern history but one instance of a besieged king, which 
was that of the king of Denmark; that had a neutral ship of 
war, a Russian frigate for example, attempted to enter the 
harbour of Copenhagen when the British fleet was investing 
it, the Captain alleging that he was carrying a letter to the 
Danish king, he must say that he thought the British ad- 
miral would not have permitted the frigate to pass for such 
a purpose; he even inclined to believe that a neutral vessel 
of war would not have been allowed to pass under such cir- 
cumstances, for any purpose. These were his sentiments, 
though he spoke, he said, without any full or exact exami- 
nation of the subject. 

I replied that neither was I master of the subject, though 
awake to the interest of it ; that I had, from a personal curi- 
osity been turning in a cursory manner to some of the ad- 
miralty books in the hope of getting light upon it, but as 
yet could only say that I had found nothing. I was disposed 
to think that book learning upon the point would be found 
scanty, and that it would have to be decided by recurring to 
principles. Nothing further was said upon the subject, and 
I must own that I draw no very favorable augury to parts 
of our coming negotiations, from as much as fell from him 
whilst we were upon it. 

Throughout the progress of our discussion on Spanish 
American affairs, I thought it proper to apprize Mr. Ra- 
venga, confidentially, of all that was going on. I take this 
opportunity of saying that I have had equal pleasure in all 
my personal intercourse with this gentleman, and in my at- 
tempts to subserve the interests of his country. 

At the close of my interview with Mr. Canning I took 
occasion to say to him that, if no objections existed to the 
request, I should be glad to be furnished with a copy of the 
note from Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven relative to 
the Russian ukase, of which I have made mention in my 
number 323. He replied that he would have been happy 
to comply with my request, but that having asked Count 
Lieven for permission to give out a copy of the note, the 


Count had said that he did not feel authorized to grant a 
copy with that view. 

I have the honor to remain, with very great respect, your 
obedient servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 

The following note was written by Mr. Rush to Mr. 
Monroe, October 22, 1823: 

"The Spanish American topic has been dropped by Mr. 
Canning in a most extraordinary manner. Not another word 
has he said to me on it since the 26th of last month, at the 
interview at Gloucester Lodge, which I have described in my 
dispatches to the department, and he has now gone out of 
town to spend the remainder of this, and a part of the next 
month. I shall not renew the topic, and should he, which 
I do not expect, I shall decline going into it again, saying 
that I must now wait until I hear from my government." 2 


London, Nov. 26, 1S23. 

Sir, — I had an interview with Mr. Canning on the twenty- 
fourth instant, at the foreign office, when he afforded me 
some information on Spanish American affairs which I now 
proceed to lay before you. 

He began by saying that our conversations on this subject 
at Gloucester Lodge (on the 26th of September) having led 
him to conclude that nothing could be accomplished between 
us, owing to the ground which I had felt it necessary to take 
respecting the immediate recognition of the late colonies by 
Great Britain, he had deemed it indispensable as no more 
time was to be lost, that Great Britain should herself, with- 
out any concert with the United States, come to an explana- 
tion with France. He had, accordingly, seen the Prince de 
Polignac, the French Ambassador at this court, and stated 
to him that as it was fit that the two courts should under- 
stand each other, distinctly, on the Spanish American ques- 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 424 to 42S. 

2 Ibid., page 428. 


tion, it was his intention to unfold the views of Great Britain 
in an official note to him, the prince, or to Sir Charles 
Stewart, the British Ambassador at Paris, to be communi- 
cated to the French Court ; or in the form of an oral confer- 
ence with the Prince himself, — whichever of these modes 
the latter might indicate as preferable. The Prince taking 
some interval to decide, it was finally decided to adopt the 
method of oral conference, with the precaution of making a 
minute of the conversation; so that each government might 
have in its possession a record of what passed, to be previ- 
ously assented to as correct on both sides. 

In pursuance of this course Mr. Canning held several con- 
ferences with the Prince de Polignac, in the early part of 
October, in which each party unfolded the views of their 
respective governments, on this branch of public affairs, and 
agreed upon the written memorandum or paper which was to 
embody them. 

This paper Mr. Canning said was of a nature which did 
not leave him at liberty to offer me a copy of it; but he had 
invited me to the foreign office, for the purpose of reading it 
to me, having only since his return to town last week exhib- 
ited it to the ministers of other powers, and not yet to all of 

He accordingly read the paper to me. When he had 
closed, I said to him, notwithstanding what had previously 
fallen from him about not giving a copy of it, that its whole 
matter was so interwoven with our past discussions, verbal 
. and written, upon the same subject, that I could not help 
thinking that my government would naturally expect a copy, 
as the regular termination of a subject, the previous stages 
of which it had been my special duty to make known to my 
government. To this remark he replied that he would will- 
ingly furnish me with a copy of that part of it which em- 
bodied the views of this government, but that, where those 
of France were at stake, he did not feel that he had the same 
discretion ; upon which footing my remarks was left without 
more commentary. 

I am therefore relieved from the task of recapitulating to 
you the contents of that portion of this paper of which I may 


expect to receive a copy. The points which chiefly arrested 
my attention, as new to me (and these I now communicate 
without waiting for the paper itself), were, that Great Britain 
declares that she will recognize the independence of the colo- 
nies, first, in case France should employ force in aid of their' 
re-subjugation; or, secondly, in case Spain herself, reverting 
to her ancient system, should attempt to put a stop to the 
trade of Britain with those colonies. But it is not said what 
Britain will do beyond recognizing their independence, her 
ulterior conduct being left to be shaped, as we may infer, by 
ulterior events. She claims a right to trade with the colo- 
nies, on the footing of a permission given by Spain herself, 
so long back as 18 10, as an equivalent for British mediation, 
offered at that day between the parent state and the colonies. 
As regards the form of government most desirable for the 
colonies as independent states, a preference is expressed for 
monarchy, could it be practicable. 

With the exception of the foregoing points, I recollect 
nothing material in the paper as regards the policy or in- 
tentions of Great Britain, not heretofore made known in my 
communications upon this subject, beginning with that of 
the 19th of August, and continued in my numbers 325, 326, 
330, 334, and 336. The letter of Mr. Canning to Sir Charles 
Stewart of the 31st of March, 1823, is still assumed as the 
basis of the policy of Great Britain. 

To report with the requisite fidelity, the views of France, 
from this paper read over but once to me, I might find an 
office more hazardous, from the fact of my having had less 
acquaintance beforehand with them. I shall, therefore, not 
attempt to do so, with any detail, from a fear that I might 
err. I have also the confident hope that an entire copy of it, 
although not given to me, will get to your hands, through 
some other channel. I am not able for my own share to dis- 
cern the adequate motives for wrapping it up in such secrecy, 
and have little doubt but that even the public journals of 
Europe will, before very long, enlighten us, with sufficient 
precision, upon all its contents. The London journals of 
the present week have themselves made a beginning towards 
this end. 


Having said thus much, I will proceed in my endeavors to 
state the main points of this paper where it was illustrative 
of the policy of France. 

i. It declares that France, like England, regards the re- 
covery of the colonies by Spain as hopeless. 

2. It expresses the determination (I think that was the 
very word) of France, not to assist in attempting their re- 

3. It expresses the desire of France to see the dispute 
made up by amicable arrangements, between the mother 
country and the colonies. 

4. It disclaims for France all idea of deriving exclusive 
commercial advantages from the colonies, saying that, like 
England, she only asks to be placed on the footing of the 
most favored nation, after Spain. 

5. It knows not what there is to be recognized as inde- 
pendent in the colonies, France regarding all government 
there as a mockery. The reasoning employed is to this 

6. It labors to show the necessity of assembling a con- 
gress, to which England should be a party (which she de- 
clines), to bring about the benevolent end of reclaiming 
those remote regions from their past errors, and making up 
the dispute between them and the parent state, upon terms 
satisfactory to both, as the policy worthy of both! 

These were the material points of the paper, as I collected 
them. I am sensible that I state some of them in a way to 
start further questions as to their true meaning, questions 
which I could myself raise, without at this moment being 
able to resolve them. Whether, among other things, France 
is to abstain from all kinds of aid to Spain (force she says 
she will not employ), does not appear quite clear to my recol- 
lection. The apprehensions of Britain however seem to be 
fully allayed, at least for the present, on the score of French 
aggrandizement in Spanish America, and it is certain that 
she does not now anticipate any speedy interruption of the 
peace of Europe from this cause. 

Whether her apprehensions on this score were ever real, 
notwithstanding Mr. Canning's advances to me, or whether 


France, from uneasiness at a prospect of collision with Great 
Britain, has, herself, receded, for a while, from her ambitious 
projects, and only for a while, are points around which there 
may be some obscurity. The language which she now holds 
to Britain is obviously at variance with that which her mani- 
festoes breathed when her troops entered Spain in the spring. 
Her duplicity, therefore, in this whole peninsular war, from 
her memorable avowals respecting the cordon sanitaire, to 
the present time, appears to have been as signal as her 

In the course of the paper on the British side, there is 
allusion to the interest that the United States have in the 
question, which is met, on the side of France by a declara- 
tion that she does not profess to be acquainted with our views 
on the subject. It is in the part which relates to the assem- 
bling of a congress. I might probably have made myself more 
accurately master of the whole paper, by recurring, in con- 
versation, to a few of the passages after Mr. Canning had 
finished reading it; but I was precluded the opportunity of 
doing this from his being pressed (whether by his previous 
wishes or otherwise, I will not say), with another appoint- 
ment, a very few moments after he had closed. 

Notwithstanding the tranquillizing professions of France, 
it would seem that the sentiments of Russia (if we may so 
infer from Pozzo di Borgo's address to Ferdinand, which has 
just come before the world), are, that the Holy Alliance con- 
sider themselves as still bound to keep a superintending eye 
upon the affairs of Spain, throughout all her dominions. 

I have the honor to remain with great respect, your obedi- 
ent servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 


London, December 27, 1823. 

Sir,— In my letter No. 346 of the 26th of November, I had 
the honor to mention that I requested of Mr. Canning a copy 
of the paper which he read to me embodying the views of 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 430, 433. 


England and France relative to Spanish America, and that 
he replied that he would do so of as much of it as related to 
England, but that over the portion of it that contained the 
exposition of the views of France he did not feel that he was 
at liberty to exercise the same option. The attempt to draw 
this line seemed at the time unnecessary, and perhaps would 
have been found not very easy in practice, and accordingly in 
the interview which I had with Mr. Canning on the twelfth 
of this month referring again to the above paper, and to the 
request I had made of him to be furnished with a copy of the 
whole of it, he said that he now felt himself able to comply, 
the French government having furnished other states with a 
copy of it ; and he promised to send me the entire copy in a 
few days. I have abstained from mentioning this promise to 
you in my intermediate communications, preferring to wait 
until the paper itself reached me. 

I have this day received it accompanied by a note from Mr. 
Canning, dated the 13th instant, and headed "Confidential" 
in which he informs me that I am at liberty to communicate 
it to my government, but only as a confidential paper, not to 
be made public in the United States. A note of a few lines 
from Mr. Planta dated yesterday, explains the delay which 
has taken place in sending it to me. Another note from Mr. 
Canning, dated also on the 13th instant, and headed "private 
and confidential " was received at the same time, in which 
he reverts to what passed between us in the summer on this 
Spanish American question, states his reason for having gone 
on to act without my concurrence, and intimates a hope that 
neither the United States nor Great Britain will now be 
called upon to lift their voice against the designs that were 
recently apprehended. In this latter note it will also be 
perceived what renewed anxiety is manifested that the whole 
subject may be treated by my government as entirely confi- 
dential. I have replied in two separate notes of this date to 
both of Mr. Canning's, and enclose copies of all the corre- 
spondence. It will be seen in Mr. Canning's notes that he 
describes the paper as having been read to me on the 12th 
instant. This is a mistake. He read it to me on the 24th 
of November, as my communication to you of the 26th of that 


month shows. The mistake is not material, and is only no- 
ticed lest it should otherwise be inferred that the paper was 
read to me a second time, which was not the case. 

It is plain in my belief, that this extraordinary solicitude 
for secrecy springs from an unwillingness in this government 
to risk the cordiality of its standing with the Holy Alliance | 
to any greater extent than can be avoided. All serious dan- 
ger to Spanish America being now at an end, I do not at 
present see what there is to prevent a return to that effective 
amity between Great Britain and that alliance which has here- 
tofore existed. Events the most recent and authoritative jus- 
tify us in saying, that no attempt upon the liberties of Europe, 
will essentially throw Britain off from the connexion, or im- 
pair her coequal allegiance to the monarchial principle; and 
the authentic paper of her government which I this day trans- 
mit, indicates that the danger of disunion from the Spanish 
American question has had its source not in any concern of 
Britain at fresh strides of Tyranny in the Alliance, but in an 
ambitious uneasiness in her Councils at French or other Con- 
tinental interposition reaching a point which threatened at 
last to trench upon the commercial empire of England, an 
empire over which her statesmen never cease to keep the 
most jealous watch. As regards the essential rights of the 
Spanish American States, their internal polity and organiza- 
tion, it will be seen from the paper, that the foreign Secretary 
of England permits the most revolting doctrines to be laid 
down by the Ambassador of France without one word of dis- 
sent or disapprobation. Some of the questions that started 
to my mind when I undertook to report the contents of this 
paper to you from having heard it read, are not entirely solved, 
I must say, on a more deliberate examination of it. 

In my interview with Mr. Canning on the 12th of this 
month, he said that the Continental powers had intended to 
hold a Congress, not, as they now alleged, to coerce the late 
Colonies, but to assist Spain with their deliberations and 
advice towards recovering their supremacy over them; but 
that Spain's proposals had been of a nature to frustrate all 
their wishes. Their offer to assist her as above had been 
lately made through the French Ambassador at Madrid. 


Spain, through the same channel, had simply said in reply, 
that France, Russia, and the other allies had nothing to do 
but to furnish ships, troops, and money for the reconquest, 
which being effected, Spain was ready to requite them all by 
a grant of equivalent advantages to be drawn from the Colo- 
nies. France had sent these proposals back to Spain as not 
fit to be entertained, and thus as Mr. Canning seemed to 
infer, has vanished the project of the Congress. One other 
scheme only remained, he said, for reducing the Colonies, 
more wild however, as he added, than all former ones. This 
was by an association in the form of a private company to be 
composed of capitalists and bankers in sufficient numbers, 
and deriving a charter from Spain, which company with their 
funds were to hire ships and troops for the reconquest and 
seek their remuneration in certain exclusive rights of trade 
to be granted to them, and also in the transfer to them of an 
interest in the mines of Mexico and Peru. Some modifica- 
tion of this visionary scheme has since made a figure in the 
journals of Europe, serving, in this country at least, to excite 
the public derision. 

But the most decisive blow to all despotic interference 
with the new States is that which it has received in the 
President's Message at the opening of Congress. It was 
looked for here with extraordinary interest at this juncture, 
and I have heard that the British packet which left New 
York the beginning of this month was instructed to wait for 
it and bring it over with all speed. It is certain that this 
vessel first brought it, having arrived at Falmouth on the 
24th instant. On its publicity in London, which followed 
as soon afterwards as possible, the credit of all the Spanish 
American securities immediately rose, and the question of 
j the final and complete safety of the new States from all 

European coercion is now considered as at rest. 

I have the honor to remain, with very great respect, your 
obedient servant, 

(Signed) Richard Rush. 1 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 434, 436. 



Paris, October 30, 1S23. 
Sir, — Soon after the date of my dispatch of the iSth of 
this month, I was informed by the British Embassador that 
he had conferred with the French Ministers (M. de Chateau- 
briand and M. de Villele) on the subject of the Spanish 
American Colonies. He told me that his object had been to 
prevent them from engaging hastily in any measures relat- 
ing to those Colonies, and that he had insisted that whatever 
measures might be taken should be adopted in common and 
after consultation among the powers really interested in the 
question, which were England, France, and the United States 
alone, the interest of the great Continental Powers of Europe 
being, on this particular point only, of a secondary nature. 
The French Ministers assured him that they would undertake 
nothing by themselves, and that the subject would be brought 
forward for mutual consideration. In the Journal des De- 
bats, the Ministerial paper, of to-day, will be found an article, 
confirming entirely this principle. It is, however, most prob- 
able that France will insist upon the concurrence of the Con- 
tinental Powers and will reject entirely that of the United 
States. The subject has never been mentioned to me in any 
way whatever by any of the French ministers. The motive 
for this course on their part is obvious enough; the United 
States having acknowledged the independence of the Colo- 
nies, they cannot be expected to concur in or assent to any 
measures not having that result for their basis; and they are 
not yet prepared here to go that length, though it is difficult 
to conceive that England would consent to any plan which 
would again place the Colonies under the dominion of Spain. 
At all events, no steps are likely to be taken hastily or im- 
mediately in relation to those countries; and, indeed, the 
affairs of the mother Country will yet require for some time 
all the cares of this Government. The Article of the Jour- 
nal des Debats announces that Councils of moderation have 
at last made some impression on the King. The course he 
was taking alarmed not only the Ministry, but the Politicians 


here, who are many degrees higher toned than the Ministry. 
Even Russia is obliged to insist upon moderation, and Pozzo, 
who is gone to Madrid, will exercise the influence of that 
Power to soften down the system the King is disposed to 
adopt, and which, from his untractable nature, there is great 
difficulty in persuading him to abandon. 

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your obe- 
dient and very humble servant, 

(Signed) D. Sheldon, Jr. 1 


Storrs, Westmorland, Aug. 31, 1823. 

My dear Sir, — I nave now to acknowledge the receipt 
of your answer to both my letters ; and whatever may be the 
practical result of our confidential communication, it is an 
unmixed satisfaction to me that the spirit in which it began 
on my part, has been met so cordially on yours. 

To a practical result eminently beneficial I see no obstacle; 
except in your want of specific powers, and in the delay which 
may intervene before you can procure them ; and during which 
events may get before us. 

Had you felt yourself authorized to entertain any formal 
proposition, and to decide upon it, without reference home, 
I would immediately have taken measures for assembling my 
colleagues in London, upon my return, in order to be enabled 
to submit to you as the act of my government all that I have 
stated to you as my own sentiments and theirs. But with 
such a delay in prospect, I think I should hardly be justified 
in proposing to bind ourselves to any thing positively and 
unconditionally; and think on the other hand that a proposi- 
tion qualified either in respect to the contingency of your 
concurrence in it, or with reference to possible changes of 
circumstances, would want the decision and frankness which 
I should wish to mark our proceeding. 

Not that I anticipate any change of circumstances, which 
could vary the views opened to you in my first letter : — nor 

1 From the Monroe Papers in the State Department, Washington, D.C. 
Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, page 429. 


that, after what you have written to me in return, I appre- 
hend any essential dissimilarity of views on the part of your 

But we must not place ourselves in a position in which, if 
called upon from other quarters for an opinion, we cannot 
give a clear and definite account not only of what we think 
and feel, but of what we have done or are doing, upon the 
matter in question. To be able to say, in answer to such an 
appeal, that the United States and Great Britain concur in 
thinking so and so would be well. To anticipate any such 
appeal by a voluntary declaration to the same effect would be 
still better. 

But to have to say that we are in communication with the 
United States but have no conclusive understanding with 
them, would be inconvenient — our free agency would thus 
be fettered with respect to other Powers; while our agreement 
with you would be yet unascertained. 

What appears to me, therefore, the most advisable is that 
you should see in my unofficial communication enough hope 
of good to warrant you in requiring Powers and Instructions 
from your Government on this point, in addition to the others 
upon which you have recently been instructed and empow- 
ered ; treating that communication not as a proposition made 
to you, but as the evidence of the nature of a proposition 
which it would have been my desire to make to you, if I had 
found you provided with authority to entertain it. 

I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem and 
respect, my dear sir, your obedient and faithful servant, 

(Signed) Geo. Canning. 1 

On December i, 1823, Mr. Rush wrote to Mr. Monroe as 

"The conduct of England on this question [South America] 
as it seems to me, has turned out to be devoid of all justice, 
of all magnanimity, and even of all true foresight and 

" She at last declares that she will recognize, not because 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 418, 419. 


the new states are de facto independent and entitled to it; 
but she issues her intentions in the light of a threat to be 
executed on the contingent misdeeds of France or Spain." 1 

Mr. Canning wrote Mr. Rush the following note, marked 
like all the others "private and confidential." 

Gloucester Lodge, Dec. 13, 1823. 

My dear Sir, — In transmitting to you a copy of the 
memorandum of a Conference between the French Ambassador 
and me, upon the affairs of Spanish America (which I had the 
honor to read to you yesterday), I am naturally led to revert to 
what passed between us in the summer upon that subject. 

Had you had it in your power, at that time, to concur in 
any joint consideration of the measures to be adopted, you 
know how happy I should have been to be enabled to propose 
such a concert. But time, and the pressure of events did not 
allow of an indefinite postponement of a matter which was 
liable, from day to day, to be brought into immediate discus- 
sion by other Powers. Our step was therefore taken within 
a few weeks after the last interchange of confidential letters 
between us. The result is before you. You will see that we 
were not unmindful of your claim to be heard ; but I flatter my- 
self that neither you nor we shall have to lift our voice against 
any of the designs which were apprehended a few months ago. 

I am sure you will feel, Sir, and I trust it will be felt by 
your Government that the confidence which I individually re- 
posed in you is sacred ; and that our intercourse in August not 
having led to any practical results, nor become matter of 
discussion between our respective governments will be con- 
sidered as having passed between two individuals relying 
upon each other's honour and discretion. 

I communicate the paper to you in such a way as to relieve 
you from any difficulty in transmitting it to your Government. 

I have the honour to be, with great esteem and regard, my 
dear sir, 

Your obedient and faithful servant, 

(Signed) George Canning. 2 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, page 433. 

2 Ibid., pages 433, 434. 

Mr. Monroe wrote the following note to Mr. Jefferson : 

Oakhill, Oct. 17th, 1823. 

Dear Sir, — I transmit to you two dispatches, which were 
received from Mr. Rush, while I was lately in Washington, 
which involve interests of the highest importance. They 
contain two letters from Mr. Canning, suggesting designs of 
the holy alliance, against the Independence of South America, 
and proposing a co-operation, between Great Britain and the 
United States, in support of it against the members of that 
alliance. The project aims in the first instance, at a mere 
expression of opinion, somewhat in the abstract, but which 
it is expected by Mr. Canning, will have a great political 
effect, by defeating the combination. By Mr. Rush's an- 
swers, which are also inclosed you will see the light in which 
he views the subject, and the extent to which he may have 
gone. Many important considerations are involved in this 
proposition. 1st. Shall we entangle ourselves, at all, in 
European politics and wars, on the side of any power, against 
others, presuming that a concert by agreement, of the kind 
proposed, may lead to that result? 2nd. If a case can exist, 
in which a sound maxim may, and ought to be departed from, 
is not the present instance precisely that case? 3rd. Has 
not the epoch arrived when Great Britain must take her stand, 
either on the side of the monarchs of Europe, or of the United 
States, and in consequence, either in favor of Despotism or 
of liberty, and may it not be presumed that, aware of that 
necessity, her government has seized on the present occur- 
rence, as that which it deems the most suitable to announce 
and mark the commencement of that career. 

My own impression is that we ought to meet the proposal 
of the British government, and make it known that we would 
view an interference on the part of the European powers, and 
especially an attack on the Colonies by them, as an attack 
upon ourselves, presuming that if they succeeded with them, 
they would extend it to us. I am sensible however of the 
extent and difficulty of the question, and shall be happy to 
have yours, and Mr. Madison's opinions on it. I do not wish 
to trouble either of you with small objects, but the present 


one is vital, involving the highest interests, for which we 
have so long and so faithfully and harmoniously contended 
together. Be so kind as to enclose to him the dispatches, 
with an intimation of the motive. 

With great respect, etc., 

(Signed) James Monroe. 1 

John Ouincy Adams, Secretary of State, stated to Mr. 
Rush the position of the United States in the following 

Department of State, Washington, Nov. 30, 1823. 

Sir, — The Instructions contained in my letter dated yes- 
terday were given with a view to enable you to return an 
explicit answer to the proposals contained in Mr. Secretary 
Canning's confidential letter to you of the 20th of August 
last. The object of this dispatch is to communicate to you 
the views of the President with regard to a more general 
consideration of the affairs of South America; to serve for 
your government, and to be used according to your discre- 
tion, in any further intercourse which you may have with the 
British Cabinet on this subject. 

In reviewing the proposals of Mr. Canning and the discus- 
sion of them in your Correspondence and Conferences, the 
President has with great satisfaction adverted to them, in the 
light of an overture, from the British Government, towards a 
confidential concert of opinions and of operations between us 
and them, with reference to the countries heretofore subject 
to Spain in this Hemisphere. In the exposition of the prin- 
ciples of the British Government, as expressed in the five 
positions of Mr. Canning's letter, we perceive nothing with 
which we cannot cheerfully concur, with the exception of that 
which still considers the recognition of the Independence of 
the Southern Nations as a question of Time and Circum- 
stances. Confident as we are that the Time is at hand when 
Great Britain, to preserve her own consistency, must come to 
this acknowledgment, we are aware that she may perhaps be 
desirous of reserving to herself the whole merit of it with 
the South Americans, and that she may finally yield more 

1 From the Jefferson Manuscripts in the State Department, Washington, D.C. 


readily to the decisive act of recognition, when appearing to 
be spontaneous, than when urged upon her by any foreign 
suggestion. The point itself has been so earnestly pressed 
in your correspondence and conferences with Mr. Canning, 
and is so explicitly stated in my dispatch of yesterday as 
indispensable, in our view, towards a co-operation of the two 
Governments upon this important interest, that the Presi- 
dent does not think it necessary that you should dwell upon 
it with much solicitude. The objections exhibited by Mr. 
Canning against the measure as stated particularly in your 
dispatches are so feeble, and your answers to them so con- 
clusive, that after the distinct avowal of our sentiments, it 
may perhaps best conduce to the ultimate entire coincidence 
of purposes between the two Governments to leave the choice 
of Time for the recognition, which Mr. Canning has reserved, 
to the exclusive consideration of the British Ministers them- 

We receive the proposals themselves, and all that has 
hitherto passed concerning them, according to the request of 
Mr. Canning, as confidential. As a first advance of that 
character which has ever been made by the British Govern- 
ment, in relation to the foreign affairs between the two 
Nations, we would meet it with cordiality, and with the true 
spirit of confidence, which is candor. The observations of 
Mr. Canning in reply to your remark, that the policy of the 
United States has hitherto been entirely distinct and sepa- 
rate from all interference in the complications of European 
Politics, have great weight and the considerations involved 
in them had already been subjects of much deliberation 
among ourselves. As a member of the European community 
Great Britain has relations with all the other Powers of 
Europe which the United States have not, and with which 
it is their unaltered determination not to interfere. But 
American Affairs, whether of the Northern or of the South- 
ern Continent can henceforth not be excluded from the in- 
terference of the United States. All questions of policy 
relating to them have a bearing so direct upon the Rights 
and Interests of the United States themselves, that they 
cannot be left at the disposal of European Powers animated 


and directed exclusively by European principles and interests. 
Aware of the deep importance of united ends and councils, 
with those of Great Britain in this emergency, we see no 
possible basis on which that harmonious concert of measures 
can be founded, other than the general principle of South 
American Independence. So long as Great Britain with- 
holds the recognition of that, we may, as we certainly do, 
concur with her in the aversion to the transfer to any other 
power of any of the colonies in this Hemisphere, heretofore, 
or yet belonging to Spain ; but the principles of that aver- 
sion, so far as they are common to both parties, resting only 
upon a casual coincidence of interests, in a National point of 
view selfish on both sides, would be liable to dissolution by 
every change of phase in the aspects of European Politics. 
So that Great Britain, negotiating at once with the European 
Alliance and with us concerning America, without being 
bound by any permanent community of principle (but only 
by a casual coincidence of interest with us), would still be 
free to accommodate her policy to any of those distributions 
of power and partitions of Territory which have for the last 
half-century been the ultima ratio of all European political 
arrangements. While we, bound to her by engagements 
commensurate only with the momentary community of our 
separate particular interests, and self-excluded from all 
negotiation with the European Alliance, should still be 
liable to see European Sovereigns dispose of American 
Interests, without consulting either with us, or with any of 
the American Nations, over whose destinies they would thus 
assume an arbitrary superintendence and control. 

It was stated to you by Mr. Canning that in the event of 
a proposal for a European Congress, to determine upon what 
measures relating to South America he should propose, that 
you, as a Representative of the United States, should be 
invited to attend at the same ; and that in the case either of 
a refusal to give you that invitation or of your declining to 
accept it if given, Great Britain would reserve to herself the 
right of declining also to attend. The President approves 
your determination not to attend, in case the invitation 
should be given; and we are not aware of any circumstances 


under which we should deem it expedient that a Minister of 
the United States should be authorized to attend at such a 
Congress if the invitation to that effect should be addressed 
to this Government itself. We should certainly decline 
attending unless the South-American Governments should 
be invited to attend by their Representatives, and as the 
Representatives of Independent Nations. We would not 
sanction by our presence any meeting of European Poten- 
tates to dispose of American Republics. We shall if such 
meeting should take place, with a view to any result of hos- 
tile action, solemnly protest against it, and against all the 
melancholy and calamitous consequences which may result 
from it. We earnestly hope that Great Britain will do the 

It has been observed that through the whole course of the 
Correspondence and of the Conferences, between Mr. Canning 
and you, he did not disclose the specific information upon 
which he apprehended so immediate an interposition of the 
European Allies in the affairs of South America, as would 
have warranted or required the measure which he proposed to 
be taken in concert with you, before this Government could 
be advised of it. And this remark has drawn the more atten- 
tion, upon observing the apparent coolness and apparent 
indifference with which he treated the subject at your last 
conferences after the peculiar earnestness and solemnity of 
his first advances. It would have been more satisfactory 
here, and would have afforded more distinct light for delib- 
eration, if the confidence in which his proposals originated 
had at once been entire. This suggestion is now made with 
a view to the future; and to manifest the disposition on our 
part to meet and return confidence without reserve, j 

The circumstances of Mr. Gallatin's private concerns hav- 
ing induced him to decline returning to Europe at this time, 
and the posture of Affairs requiring in the opinion of the 
President the immediate renewal of negotiations with France, 
Mr. James Brown has been appointed to that Mission, and is 
expected very shortly to proceed upon it. 

I am with great respect, etc., 

(Signed) John Ouincy Adams. 


Mr. Jefferson's reply to Mr. Monroe is as follows: 

" Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to 
entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. 

" Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with 
Cis-Atlantic affairs — America, North and South, has certain 
interests, distinct from Europe and peculiarly its own. She 
should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart 
from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become 
the domicile of despotism, our endeavors should surely be 
to make our hemisphere that of freedom. 

"One nation most of all could disturb us in this pursuit. 
She now offers to lead, aid and accompany us in it. By 
acceding to her proposition, we detach her from the bonds, 
bring her mighty weight into the scales of free government, 
and emancipate a continent at one stroke, which might 
otherwise linger along in doubt and difficulty. 

" But the consequences in which the present proposition 
might engage us, should be in its outcome not hers but 
ours. It is to maintain our principle not to depart from it. 
But I am clearly of Mr. Canning's opinion, that it will 
prevent instead of provoking war. " 1 

Thereupon Monroe, in his annual message of December 2, 
1823, announced the following propositions, which constitute 
the Monroe Doctrine : 

" It was stated at the commencement of the last session 
that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to 
improve the condition of the people of those countries, and 
that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary modera- 
tion. — It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been 
so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of 
events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so 
much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we 
have always been anxious and interested spectators. 

"The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the 
most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their 
fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 389, 392. From the 
Adams Manuscripts. 


"In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to 
themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport 
with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are 
invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make 
preparations for our defense. 

" With the movements in this hemisphere we are of neces- 
sity more immediately connected, and by causes which must 
be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. 

"The political system of the allied powers is essentially 
different in this respect from that of America. This differ- 
ence proceeds from that which exists in their respective 
governments; and to the defense of our own which has been 
achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and 
matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens 
and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this 
whole nation is devoted. 

"We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable 
relations existing between the United States and those 
Powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on 
their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemi- 
sphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. 

"With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Euro- \ 
pean power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. 
But with the governments who have declared their independ- 
ence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on 
great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we 
could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing 
them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by 
any European power in any other light than as the manifesta-' 
tion of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States. 

" In the war between those new governments and Spain, 
we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, 
and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, 
provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of 
the competent authorities of this government, shall make a 
corresponding change on the part of the United States indis- 
pensable to their security. 

"The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe 
is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof 


can be adduced than that the allied powers should have 
thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, 
to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. 

"To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the 
same principle, is a question in which all independent powers 
whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even 
those most remote, and surely none more so than in the 
United States. 

" Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an 
early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that 
quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which 
is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its 
powers; to consider the governments de facto as the legiti- 
mate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with 
it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm and manly 
policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every 
power, submitting to injuries from none. 

" But in regard to those continents, circumstances are 
eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that 
the allied powers should extend their political system to any 
portion of either continent without endangering our peace 
and happiness ; nor can anyone believe that our southern 
brethren if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own 

" It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold 
such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look 
to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those 
new governments, and their distance from each other, it must 
be obvious that she can never subdue them. 

"It is still the true policy of the United States to leave 
the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will 
pursue the same course." 1 

This message was received with great approval by the 
press of England. It clearly appears from the tenor of their 
editorial comments that the hand of Mr. Canning in inspiring 
this message was unseen in the transaction. The Monroe 
Doctrine was but a visible part of a secret alliance contem- 

1 " Messages of the Presidents," by J. D. Richardson, Vol. II, page 217. 


plated if not actually formed between Great Britain and the 
United States. The general public was not aware of this 
fact until the correspondence concerning the Venezuelan 
boundary line between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Olney took 
place during the last administration of President Cleveland. 

On January 20, 1824, Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, 
introduced the following resolution in committee of the whole 
on the state of the Union: 

" Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That 
the people of these States would not see, without serious 
inquietude, any forcible intervention by the Allied Powers of 
Europe, in behalf of Spain, to reduce to their former sub- 
jection those parts of the continent of America which have 
proclaimed and established for themselves, respectively, 
independent governments, and which have been solemnly 
recognized by the United States." 1 

This resolution was never called up. Monroe's declara- 
tion failed to receive legislative confirmation soon after its 

Alexander I, who was the real head and the mainstay and 
support of the Holy Alliance, died in 1825 amidst con- 
spiracies against him in favor of a freer government, and his 
brother Nicholas was literally compelled to fight his way to 
the throne. 

The revolution in France of July, 1830, demonstrated that 
the Holy Alliance was a thing of the past. Its mission 
ended with the efforts to secure a secret alliance between 
Great Britain and the United States which culminated in 
the promulgation of the Monroe declaration, but its unan- 
nounced death was not known, especially in the Western 
Hemisphere, until many years afterwards, as the history of 
those times will show. 

1 " The Monroe Doctrine," by George F. Tucker, page 21. 




The American and French revolutions and the war of Europe 
with Napoleon gave a tremendous impulse in favor of con- 
stitutional liberty in Europe. When Napoleon fell, there was 
a prospect of the introduction of constitutional government 
throughout a great part of Europe. King Frederick William 
stimulated the efforts of the Prussian people against France 
by the hopes of liberty, and had definitely promised them a 
constitution and a general assembly. The czar had deter- 
mined to introduce parliamentary life into the kingdom of 
Poland, and even hoped to extend it after some interval to 
Russia. The Federal Act drawn up for Germany at the Con- 
gress of Vienna declared that in every State within the German 
league a constitution should be established. Against this 
liberal movement of the age, Prince Metternich, who held the 
office of Chancellor and Prime Minister of Austria, resolutely 
set his face. 

Napoleon proposed an armistice in a letter of January 19, 
1 8 14. Metternich replied that he was convinced that it would 
lead to nothing. 

Napoleon ridiculed this letter and said, " Metternich fancies 
he controls the destinies of Europe, while he is under the con- 
trol of all the other powers." 1 

Whether or not there was a grain of truth in this remark at 
the date it was made, is problematical. It is certain, however, 
that from that time until about the year 1825, Metternich was 
the master spirit in European diplomacy. 

While the Holy Alliance, as before stated, had its origin in 
religious zeal and enthusiasm, the Czar of Russia did not com- 
prehend nor foresee its reactionary tendencies. 

1 New American Cyclopedia, Vol. XI, page 431. 


Metternich was entirely given over to the advocacy of the 
absolute form of monarchial government. He presided at the 
Congress of Vienna and at the Congress of the Holy Alliance, 
which convened atTroppau in October, 1820. Alexander, who 
had been a liberal and reformer in the early part of his reign, 
under the dominating influence of Metternich became devoted 
to absolutism and was completely won over to his views. 

Lord Castlereagh, the second Marquis of Londonderry, 
took his seat in the Congress of Vienna as British plenipo- 
tentiary. It was soon discovered that Metternich had mastered 
him, and he supported the former's measures throughout the 

Castlereagh also participated in the Congress of the Holy 
Alliance at Aix-la-Chapelle in the year 181 8, though he may 
not have actually taken his seat as a member of that body; but 
it was commonly believed among the people that he had 
signed the document. His struggle was to put Great Britain 
in harmony with the other European powers. This led him 
to desire that Great Britain should join the Holy Alliance. 

Mr. Canning and Prince de Polignac held several confer- 
ences early in October, 1823, in which the latter made the 
following declaration in substance : that his government be- 
lieved it to be utterly hopeless to reduce Spanish America to 
the state of its former relations to Spain; that France dis- 
claimed, on her part, any intention or desire to avail herself of 
the present state of the colonies, or of the present situation of 
France towards Spain, to appropriate to herself any part 
of the Spanish possessions in America, or to obtain for herself 
any exclusive advantages ; and that, like England, she would 
willingly see the mother country in possession of superior 
commercial advantages, by amicable arrangements, and would 
be contented like her, to rank, after the mother country, 
among the most favored nations. 

Lastly, that she abjured, in any case, any design of acting 
against the colonies by force of arms. 1 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 431 and 432, and Note, 
page 428. 



After Mr. Rush had rejected Mr. Canning's proposal for a 
joint declaration of the two governments against the Holy 
Alliance, Mr. Canning told Prince de Polignac that Great 
Britain would not permit any interference in Spanish American 
affairs. This called forth from the prince the foregoing reply. 
On October 22, 1823, Mr. Rush wrote to Mr. Monroe a letter 
of which the following is an extract : 

" The Spanish American topic has been dropped by Mr. 
Canning in a most extraordinary manner. Not another word 
has he said to me on it since the 26th of last month, at the 
interview at Gloucester Lodge, which I have described in my 
dispatches to the department, and he has now gone out of 
town to spend the remainder of this, and part of next month. 
I shall not renew the topic, and should he, which I do not 
expect, I shall decline going into it again, saying that I must 
wait until I hear from my government." 1 

The cooling of Mr. Canning's enthusiasm in respect to some 
form of joint or co-operative action by Great Britain and the 
United States has been attributed to this conference between 
Mr. Canning and Prince de Polignac, the Ambassador of 
France to Great Britain, which has been quoted. 

This no doubt was one of the reasons which influenced Mr. 
Canning to let the matter drop, but it was evidently not the 
entire cause, as contemporary European history shows. The 
additional reasons may be found in the change of policy of 
Russia toward Greece, which was brought about by Mr. 

When Greece revolted against Turkey in 1821, Metternich 
took the side of Turkey and secured the co-operation and 
pledge, both of Castlereagh and Alexander I of Russia, to 
sustain him in his policy against Greece, notwithstanding the 
fact that Russia had been intriguing with Greece for fifty 
years to secure a revolt. Castlereagh had promised Metter- 
nich that he would be present and participate in the Con- 

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. XV, pages 431 and 432, and Note, 
page 42S. 


gress of the Holy Alliance at Verona in the year 1822, 
but he committed suicide while making his preparations to 

Canning succeeded him as Foreign Secretary, and among his 
first measures was to side resolutely with Greece in her efforts 
to throw off the yoke of Turkey. This drove Alexander to 
assume at first and Metternich to assume throughout, an 
attitude of neutrality in the struggle of Greece with Turkey. 
The allied fleets of England, France, and Russia annihilated 
the Turkish and Egyptian fleets in the bay of Navarino in the 
early days of the reign of the Czar Nicholas, and the indepen- 
dence of Greece was thus secured. 

Canning had sent the Duke of Wellington, in 1822, to the 
Congress of Verona. The " Iron Duke," as he was then 
called, to the jmrprise of everybody held aloof and would have 
no part nor lot in the proceedings. 

His invincible squares had destroyed France at Waterloo 
and made it possible for the continental sovereigns to frame 
the Holy Alliance, and the surprise amounted to consterna- 
tion when contrary to all expectations he put Great Britain in 
the category of being an open enemy of this Alliance. It was 
a bold stroke of diplomacy that the continental sovereigns 
had not anticipated. 

Canning thereupon, operating through Richard Rush and ' 
John Ouincy Adams, became the real author of the Monroe 

If Great Britain had persisted in the reactionary policy of 
Castlereagh, it would have resulted in her destruction as one 
of the leading powers of Europe. It would have reduced her, 
like Spain at the present time, to a position as inferior and 
inconsequential as that of England herself under the rule of 
the Plantagenets. Castlereagh and Canning were rivals and 
enemies. They were both friends of Pitt, who had made use 
of their services to counteract the fiery eloquence of Fox and 

Byron in his "Irish Avatar" describes Castlereagh as "A 
wretch never named but with curses and jeers." 


Among the poet's epigrams were the following: 

" Oh, Castlereagh ! thou art a patriot now, 
Cato died for his country, so did'st thou ; 
He perish'd rather than see Rome enslaved, 
Thou cut'st thy throat that Britain may be saved ! " 

• • • • • • • 

" So Castlereagh has cut his throat ! The worst 
Of this is, — that his own was not the first." 

" So He has cut his throat at last ! — He ! Who ? 
The man who cut his country's long ago." 

Byron's epitaph on Castlereagh is vulgar by innuendo and 
therefore is not quoted, but it points a moral. 

Castlereagh, the aristocrat, hated the people, and the people 
cordially hated him. Canning, the son of an actress, by favor- 
ing constitutional liberty as against absolutism, put his country 
in the front rank of greatness and strengthened the United 
States of America in its foreign policy, which afterwards drove 
the house of Hapsburg from the throne of Mexico and shielded 
the struggling republics of this hemisphere from being crushed 
by gigantic combinations of despotism. 

France had never been compensated for the invasion of 
Spain under the Duke of Angouleme, whereby Spain was re- 
manded from a constitutional monarchy to an absolute one 
under the dictates of the Holy Alliance. There are some his- 
torical facts tending to show that France had expected to 
receive her compensation by territorial acquisitions in Spanish 
America. Mr. Stapleton, in his " Life of Canning," 1 makes 
the following assertion : 

" By the declarations of the Prince de Polignac in this im- 
portant conference, it is not unfair to conclude, if the projects 
of the French Cabinet were, as they were supposed to have 
been, to have indemnified France for the expenses of the in- 
vasion of Spain by territorial acquisitions in Spanish America, 
that those projects were in a great degree laid aside in conse- 
quence of the firm and decided tone taken by Mr. Canning. 

1 Vol. II, pages 32 and 33. 


" But whether they were abandoned or not, the conviction of 
the French Government that it was utterly hopeless to reduce 
Spanish America to the state of its former relations to Spain 
being avowed, and the design of acting in any case against the 
colonies by force of arms being abjured, were of the utmost 
value in preparing the way for the ultimate measure of recog- 
nition on which, in the event of their being gratified, Mr. 
Canning had resolved." 

The dates when these conferences took place between Mr. 
Canning and the Prince de Polignac are fixed in the letter of 
Mr. Rush of November 26, 1823. Mr. Rush says Canning had 
several conferences with the prince on the Spanish-American 
question in the early part of October, and that they agreed on 
a written memorandum which embodied their views. This 
paper, Mr. Rush says, was read to him by Mr. Canning. 
He gives a few points in the conclusions of France as they 
were settled by the Prince de Polignac with Mr. Canning in 
these early October interviews. 

Among other things the paper contained these propositions : 

1. It declared that France, like England, regarded the re- 
covery of the colonies by Spain as hopeless. 

2. It expressed the determination of France not to assist 
Spain in attempting their reconquest. 

These events took place prior to the use of steam and tele- 
graphy as a means of communication between governments and 
capitals, so that there were long periods of time consumed in 
discussing subjects between nations. 

Upon a full view of the correspondence, it is conclusively 
shown that all the dangers from the Holy Alliance in this 
hemisphere had passed away nearly two months prior to the 
time when Monroe made his famous declaration. 

Mr. Canning secured the alliance of France and Russia with 
Great Britain for the independence of Greece against Turkey 
and Egypt. He was striving, not only to retain the extensive 
commerce which had been given to England by the revolt of 
Spanish America, but also to break up the Holy Alliance itself, 
by rushing to the front a new order of things to occupy the 


attention of Europe. He succeeded in doing so by his alli- 
ances on behalf of Greece. 

Up to the time he entered upon this masterly policy, affairs 
were drifting so that soon Great Britain must either have joined 
the Alliance, or fought it. This latter alternative, of course, 
meant that Great Britain must have fought the balance of 
Europe. It required boldness, audacity, and the most tactful 
diplomacy, but Mr. Canning was equal to every emergency. 



SlMON BOLIVAR, who was president of the republic of Co- 
lombia, originated a project to have a congress of the South 
American republics convene at Panama with a view to unite 
in mutual defence against European aggression. Plenipo- 
tentiaries were to meet at Panama, on June 22, 1826, for the 
purpose of forming a treaty. The enemies of Bolivar said that 
he really aimed at the erection of the whole of South America 
into one federative republic, with himself as its dictator. 

John Quincy Adams, then President of the United States, 
and Henry Clay, his Secretary of State, became enthusiastic 
in favor of sending ambassadors to the Panama Congress to 
represent the United States. Accordingly, Adams, on De- 
cember 26, 1825, sent in a message suggesting the propriety 
of having the United States represented at the Panama Con- 
gress, using the following language : 

" An agreement between all the parties represented at the 
meeting, that each will guard by its own means against the 
establishment of any future European colony within its 
borders, may be found advisable. This was more than two 
years since announced by my predecessor to the world as a 
principle resulting from the emancipation of both the Ameri- 
can continents. 

" It may be so developed to the new Southern nations 
that they will all feel it as an essential appendage to their 
independence." 1 

The protracted debates which followed form quite an epoch 
in our nation's history, and the opposition to the policy of 
the administration in respect to sending any ministers pleni- 

1 •< 

Messages of the Presidents," Vol. II, page 339. 


potentiary to the Panama Congress was led by Messrs. Benton 
of Missouri, Berrien of Georgia, Cobb of Georgia, Hayne of 
South Carolina, Van Buren of New York, John Randolph of 
Virginia, and Brent of Louisiana. 

Their speeches deal very largely with the questions pertain- 
ing to the effect of the measure on the peace and happiness of 
that portion of the union which then maintained the institution 
of slavery. They could see, or thought they saw, that Cuba 
was to be taken from Spain by the combinations in the West- 
ern Hemisphere against that nation. As a result, negro insur- 
rections would take place in Cuba, and owing to its proximity 
to our shores, where slavery existed, similar uprisings would 
follow here. Their opposition did not rest alone on this objec- 
tion. They were opposed in principle to " entangling alli- 
ances " as an abstract question, and moreover, some of the 
speakers pointed out that such a mongrel population of races 
would be wanting in that stability and high character which 
should be expected among allies of this country. Mr. Benton 
said that " we could have no association with republics which 
had black generals in their armies and mulatto senators in 
their Congresses." 1 

John Randolph said that " the principle of the American 
Revolution and the principle that is now at work in the penin- 
sula of South America and in Guatemala and New Spain, 
are principles as opposed as light and darkness, principles as 
opposed as a manly and rational liberty is opposed to the 
orgies of French bacchanals of the revolution, as opposite as a 
manly and rational piety is to fanaticism." Time has certainly 
vindicated the opinion of Mr. Randolph. The Latin American 
republics from that day to this have alternated between anarchy 
and military despotism. 

Both Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay were considered by the oppo- 
sition as being favorable to a treaty at Panama, both offensive 
and defensive, in which all the republics of the Western Hemi- 
sphere would unite. Both disclaimed any purpose to commit 
this government to any policy inconsistent with its position of 

1 " Life of Thomas H. Benton," by President Roosevelt, page 65. 


neutrality between Spain and her colonies, and both disclaimed 
the idea of attempting anything in the way of a confederation 
against European aggression beyond what each republic 
might do for itself, and in its own interest; and yet their hope 
seems to have been at least to make the message and doc- 
trine of Monroe the doctrine and policy of all the republics 
in this hemisphere, which would be a policy necessarily 
leading up to some sort of co-operation among them under 
certain circumstances. 

Mr. Clay was called upon to explain a paragraph in his letter 
to Mr. Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, in which he said : 

" Only about three months ago, when Mexico thought 
France was meditating an invasion of Cuba, the Mexican gov- 
ernment at once demanded through you, from the government 
of the United States, the fulfilment of the memorable pledge 
given by the president in his message of December, 1823, to 

Mr. Clay explained the opinion here expressed in his report 
of March 29, 1826, to the House of Representatives, by saying 
that the United States stood pledged not to a foreign power, 
but only to themselves. 

While the opposition did not accept this explanation as suf- 
ficient, they were inclined to accept the assurances of Mr. 
Adams, that under no circumstance would any pledges be 
entered into beyond the reciprocal assurance of the powers 
represented that they would execute the principles of the 
Monroe Doctrine, each within its own territory and with its 
own resources. 

Adams, in his message of December 26, 1825, had nominated 
Richard C. Anderson of Kentucky and John Sergeant of Penn- 
sylvania to be envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipoten- 
tiary to the congress of the American nations at Panama. After 
prolonged delays and debates in Congress upon the matter, 
their nomination was confirmed by the Senate, the division of 
the vote being on party and not sectional lines. Congress 
made an appropriation to defray their expenses. 


While Bolivar originally invited only the Spanish American 
republics to send delegates to the Panama Congress, yet San- 
tander, the vice-president of Colombia and at the time its act- 
ing president, extended the invitation to all the American 
governments, including the black republic of Hayti, to neutrals 
as well as to belligerents. He explains his view fully in a 
letter to Bolivar, dated March 6, 1825. In this letter he refers 
to the proposed work of the Panama Congress as the most 
stupendous that has ever been conceived since the fall of the 
Roman Empire. 1 Santander seems to have expressed the pop- 
ular notion about this great convention of the ambassadors of 
all the governments of the Western Hemisphere. 

The Abbe de Pradt, a French political writer, championed it 
in his work called " Congress de Panama," in which he said : 

" The Congress of Panama will be one of the greatest events 
of our times, and its effects will be felt to the remotest 
posterity." 2 

The congress assembled at Panama on June 22, 1826. The 
only American nations therein represented were Colombia, 
Central America, Peru, and Mexico. Colombia was repre- 
sented by Pedro Gual and Pedro Briceno Mendez ; Central 
America by Pedro Malina and Antonio Larrozabal ; Mexico 
by Jose Mariano Michelena and Jose Dominguez. Chile had 
promised to send ambassadors, but failed to comply, owing 
to civil war. Buenos Ayres refused her co-operation. 

One of our ambassadors, Mr. Anderson, then minister to 
Bogota, died at Cartagena on his way from Bogota to Panama. 

Owing to the delays caused by the prolonged debates in 
Congress concerning the Panama mission, the confirmation of 
the two appointments by the Senate, and the time occupied in 
voting an appropriation to defray their expenses, Mr. Ser- 
geant was late in starting, and failed to reach his destination un- 
til after the congress had adjourned. The commissioners who 
were present entered into certain covenants, establishing the 

1 29 Niles Register, page 184. 

2 Bancroft's " History of Central America," page 510; Pradt's " Congress de 
Panama," page 171. 


contingent of land and naval forces each nation was to contri- 
bute to the projected league against the Holy Alliance. They 
likewise agreed upon the points to be submitted for the accept- 
ance of the several allies. 

They then adjourned to meet again at Tacubaya, a village 
near the City of Mexico. Not a single resolution or measure 
adopted by that convention was ever carried into practice. 
Thus the greatest work of all the ages came to nought. 

Bolivar expressed his disgust at the miserable outcome with 
great emphasis in a letter to General Paez, and then came 
home and turned his attention to the suppression of another 
revolution in Colombia. 



Long prior to the war of the revolution and after the decline 
of piracy in the " Sea of the Antilles," an English settlement 
called the Balize, or Belize, was established on the eastern 
coast of Yucatan. Some authors claim that it derived its 
name from a Scotch freebooter named Wallace, pronounced 
by the Spaniards Walice, or Balice. Others claim that its 
name comes from the French balise, a beacon. The French 
derivation is probably correct, because the freebooters used 
to rendezvous along the coast at this point, and when pursued 
would take refuge behind the dangerous reefs dotted with bays, 
where larger vessels found it difficult to penetrate. They 
raised signals and beacons for the guidance of their own crafts, 
and in the days of piracy it was for them a veritable place of 

This English settlement of Balize was engaged in cutting 
logwood for dye-stuffs and in exporting it to foreign countries. 
The territory belonged to Spain and constituted a part of the 
Spanish province of Yucatan. 

While Spain did not interfere much with the local 'govern- 
ment of this English colony of wood-choppers, yet they were 
only tenants of hers, and were compelled to be controlled by 
her system of export and import laws, and especially those 
against smuggling, as well as many other internal regulations. 
They were required among other things to confine themselves 
within certain limits. This latter regulation was not faith- 
fully kept, as they extended from time to time the boundaries 
assigned them. The aggressive character of this colony, as 
well as the Spanish dislike of it, caused much trouble between 
it and the occupants of the adjacent territory. An extended 
reference to these troubles is unnecessary. 


The treaties and negotiations of Great Britain in respect to 
this colony should be examined with a view of determining 
what the rights of Great Britain are or have been in that 
territory now known as British Honduras. 

The treaty between England and Spain of 1763 provided 
that all fortifications which English subjects had erected in 
the Bay of Honduras and other places of the territory of Spain 
in that part of the world should be demolished. England 
having thus conceded and recognized the title of Spain in and 
to all this territory, nevertheless obtained from Spain, in this 
same treaty of 1763, the following concession: 

" And his Catholic majesty shall not permit his Britannic 
majesty's subjects, or their workmen to be disturbed or 
molested, under any pretext whatever, in their said places of 
cutting and loading logwood ; and for this purpose they may 
build without hindrance, and occupy without interruption, the 
houses and magazines necessary for their families and effects, 
and his C. M. assures to them the full enjoyment of these ad- 
vantages and powers in the Spanish coasts and territories, 
as above stipulated, immediately after the ratification of the 
present treaty." 1 

To insure the observance of this treaty, the British govern- 
ment sent out Sir William Burnaby, who in connection with 
the Spanish authorities settled the limits within which the 
English were to confine their wood-cutting operations. He 
drew up a code for the colony under the title of the Burnaby 
Code, by which this colony was governed for a long period. 

Following the treaty of 1763, the English colonists con- 
tinued to make fresh encroachments on the adjacent territory, 
and they became deeply engaged in smuggling and other 
illicit practices. The Spaniards, alarmed and indignant at this 
misconduct, organized a large force, and on September 15, 
1779, suddenly attacked and destroyed the establishment, tak- 
ing the inhabitants prisoners to Merida and afterwards to 
Havana, where many of them died. Those who survived in 

1 (Balize.) New American Cyclopedia, Vol. II, page 527. 


1782 were liberated and allowed to go to Jamaica. Strong 
representations were made to the British government for re- 
dress, but the allegations of the Spaniards were found to be 
so well supported that these were dismissed. 

For two or three years the establishment seems to have 
been abandoned. In 1783, however, some of the old settlers 
returned with a considerable body of new adventurers, and again 
became actively engaged in cutting wood and exporting it. 

On September 3, 1783, a new treaty was signed between 
Great Britain and Spain, which set forth that in order " to pre- 
vent as much as possible, all causes of complaint and misun- 
derstanding heretofore occasioned by cutting wood for dyeing 
or logwood ; and several English settlements having been 
formed and extended under this pretense upon the Spanish 
Continent, it is expressly agreed that his Britannic majesty's 
subject shall have the right of cutting, loading, and carrying 
away logwood in the district lying between the rivers Wallis, 
or Balize, and Rio Hondo, taking the course of these two 
rivers for unalterable boundaries, &c." l 

This article of the treaty further provided that the conces- 
sions therein contained " should not be considered as derogat- 
ing from the rights of sovereignty of the King of Spain over 
the district in question." 

Although the terms of this treaty were very explicit, yet 
affairs did not proceed favorably. Accordingly, a new treaty 
was made in 1786, between Great Britain and Spain, which 
recited that the King of Spain made this treaty " from senti- 
ments of friendship toward his Britannic majesty and the 
British nation." 2 

By this treaty of 1786, Spain granted an extent of territory 
additional to that of 1783, embracing the territory between 
the river Siboon, or Jabon, and the river Balize. The total 
grants collectively embraced the entire coast between the 
river Siboon in latitude 17 20' on the South, and the Rio 
Hondo on the North, a coast line of about ninety miles with 
the adjacent islands and bays. 

1 New American Cyclopedia, Vol. II, pages 527, 528. 2 Ibid. 


But these extended limits were coupled with still more rigid 
restrictions. This treaty of 1786 had a stipulation to the effect 
that the English might cut and export wood, or any other 
fruits of the earth purely natural and uncultivated, but they 
" were expressly prohibited from ever using this permission 
for establishing any plantation of sugar, coffee, &c, or man- 
ufactures of any kind," J and " the lands in question being indis- 
putably acknowledged to belong of right to the King of Spain, 
no settlement of that kind by them or by the population which 
should follow could be allowed." 2 

Another stipulation of this treaty prohibited the erection of 
all fortifications and the formation of any system of govern- 
ment, civil or military. 

These settlers being at so great a distance from England 
were not very exact in the observance of either the letter or 
spirit of the treaty of 1786. They gave great annoyance to 
their Spanish neighbors, who on the breaking out of the war 
between the two countries eagerly availed themselves of this 
event to attempt the complete annihilation of the establishment. 

The settlers strongly fortified a small island off the harbor 
called St. Georges Coy, and with the aid of the English sloop- 
of-war Merlin defeated a force of two thousand men who had 
concentrated at Campeachy under General O'Neill, who had 
set sail for Balize and arrived July 10, 1798. 

This was the last attempt to dislodge the English, who took 
new courage from their success. Partisan writers have re- 
ferred to this defeat of the Spaniards as an act of conquest, 
thereby permanently establishing British sovereignty over the 
territory. But those who take this view entirely forget or 
wilfully overlook the important fact that in 18 14, Great Britain 
by a new treaty with Spain revived and re-enacted all the 
provisions of the treaty of 1786. 3 Moreover, the acts of parlia- 
ment as late as the year 18 19, always refer to the Balize in 
such terms as to show that it is not within the dominions of 
Great Britain. 

1 New American Cyclopedia, Vol. II, page 528. 

2 Ibid. a Ibid. 


The acts of parliament in 1817 and 18 19 relating to Balize 
always refer to it as " a settlement for certain purposes in the 
possession and under the protection of his majesty, but not 
within the territory and dominions of his majesty." 

The " certain purposes " are those set forth in the treaty of 
1786, and revived and re-enacted in 18 14. Later on and after 
the Spanish American provinces had achieved their independ- 
ence of Spain, Great Britain, not knowing within which republic 
the territory of Balize might fall, sought to secure her rights, 
thereby incorporating the provisions of the treaty of 1786 into 
all of her treaties with the new states. It was in fact incorpor- 
ated in her treaty with Mexico in 1826. 1 

The treaty of 1786 was included in the draft of a treaty 
which Great Britain submitted to Senor Zabadua, the repre- 
sentative of the Republic of Central America in London in 
1 83 1, but which failed for want of adequate powers on the 
part of that representative. 2 This same treaty was also incor- 
porated in the one proposed by Great Britain to New 
Granada in 1825, but it was stricken out by New Granada 
on the ground that it related to territory beyond and never 
within her jurisdiction. 

Great Britain has, therefore, no rights in Balize beyond 
those which were conveyed by the treaties already quoted, 
and politically Balize is still a settlement for " certain purposes 
under the protection, but not within the dominion of the 
British Crown." 

The nature and character of Great Britain's title to Balize, 
or what is now called British Honduras, does not seem to 
have been considered in the year 1850, when John M. Clayton 
of Delaware, as Secretary of State in President Taylor's 
cabinet, agreed upon the terms of the treaty with Sir Henry 
Bulwer, the British Ambassador. 

1 New American Cyclopedia, Vol. II, page 528. 

2 Ibid. 



The name of Bay Islands has been applied to the islands 
of Ruatan, Guanaja, Helena, Morat, and Utila, in the Bay of 
Honduras, since the year 1850. These islands possess excel- 
lent harbors, and their possession is a commanding one from 
a commercial and naval point of view. They were once an 
asylum for the pirates who infested that locality, who from 
that point sailed out to prey upon the commerce, principally 
of Guatemala, Cuba, and San Domingo. 

In treating of the subject of Balize, or British Honduras, we 
have gone over the same ground in part that pertains to the 
Bay Islands. 

The treaties with Spain of 1763, 1783, and 1786, and then 
the revival and re-enactment of the treaty of 1786 by the 
treaty of 1814, all applied to the Bay Islands, except that they 
were not recognized as British colonies, and no rights were 
ever stipulated for British subjects in these islands. 

The treaty of 1783 provided that the English should aban- 
don the continent as well as all islands whatever dependent 
upon it. This treaty excepted Balize, where the English colo- 
nists were granted certain privileges, as we have already seen 
in another chapter. These privileges embraced certain islands 
contiguous to the coast of Balize, but they did not embrace 
this more distant group of islands which were not occupied 
by British subjects for the purposes of cutting logwood. 

When the treaty of 1786 was made, Spain insisted on more 
stringent terms, which were incorporated, by which it was 
provided that the English should evacuate the country of the 
Mosquitos as well as the continent in general, and the islands 
adjacent without exception. England did in fact abandon not 
only these islands, but the whole coast, excepting Balize. 



The Bay Islands after the treaty of 1786 remained in the 
undisturbed occupation of Spain, until the year 1822, when 
the Central American provinces achieved their independence. 
At this time the Bay Islands were under the jurisdiction of the 
Republic of Honduras. 

The title of the republic was undisputed and clear after Hon- 
duras entered the confederation of Central America, and down 
to 1830, when the superintendent of the British established at 
Balize made a descent on Ruatan and seized it on behalf of the 
British crown, in consequence of its refusal to surrender cer- 
tain runaway slaves. This act was afterwards disavowed by the 
British government. In 1838, a similar trouble arose, which 
was also disavowed by the British government in 1844. 

In the year 1850, Captain Jolly, commanding the English 
ship-of-war Bermuda, visited these islands. He called a meet- 
ing of the inhabitants and declared them under the sover- 
eignty of Great Britain. This seizure was vigorously protested 
against by Chief-Justice William Fitzgibbon, and one of the 
grounds of his protest was that it was in violation of the treaties 
of Great Britain with Spain in 1786 and 18 14. He also alleged 
that the seizure of these islands was in violation of the treaty 
of the United States with Great Britain of 1850, which had 
been made but a short time before, and which is known as the 
Clayton-Bulwer treaty. 

He further protested on the ground that the sovereignty of 
the islands was incontestably vested in the State of Honduras. 
In spite of this protest, backed by the guns of the " Bermuda," 
the authorities appointed by Sir Charles Grey were duly in- 
stalled on the islands. 

On March 20, 1852, a royal warrant was issued, constituting 
the islands a colony of Great Britain, under the title of the 
Colony of the Bay Islands. Expostulations were at once ad- 
dressed by the government of the United States of America 
to that of Great Britain, and an elaborate correspondence 
was carried on through the years 1854, 1855, and 1856, be- 
tween Mr. Buchanan, American Minister in London, and Lord 
Clarendon, but without any satisfactory result. 


The position assumed by Lord Clarendon was that these 
islands were dependencies of Balize. This argument was 
effectually overthrown by the production of a document in 
parliament by Sir George Grey, British Colonial Secretary, 
dated November 23, 1836, in which the limits and dependen- 
cies of Balize were officially set forth. The Bay Islands were 
not included in these dependencies, nor did the limits of Balize, 
as denned by Sir George Grey, approach within sixty miles of 
any of the islands. But not only did the discussions between 
Mr. Buchanan and Lord Clarendon fail of any approach to a 
satisfactory adjustment, but the controversy began to assume 
a menacing form. 

Great Britain hastily augmented her naval forces in the 
West Indies, and her example was promptly followed by the 
United States, and for a time the peace of the two countries 
turned upon the discretion of a few naval commanders acting 
under orders which were necessarily vague and indefinite. 

At this critical moment, the government of Honduras dis- 
patched a minister to London, who took the ground that the 
question at issue was one that primarily concerned Honduras, 
and demanded as a measure of justice to that republic, the 
surrender of the islands. Both the United States and Great 
Britain had committed themselves beyond the power of chang- 
ing or receding, but this solution was regarded with favor by 
both governments, and Great Britain entered into a convention 
with Honduras, whereby the Bay Islands were placed under the 
sovereignty of the latter State. 



In March, 1853, during the administration of Franklin Pierce, 
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty received a baptism of fire in the 
form of a debate in the Senate of the United States between 
Mr. Douglas of Illinois, Mr. Mason of Virginia, Chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Relations, on the one hand, and 
Mr. Clayton, who as Secretary of State had acted for the 
government in framing the provisions of the treaty, on the 

After the death of General Taylor, Mr. Clayton did not 
remain in the cabinet under Mr. Fillmore, but was again re- 
turned to the Senate by the State of Delaware. Mr. Clayton 
himself opened a discussion in the Senate upon a resolution 
he introduced, which seemed to have for its object a review of 
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 1 the Monroe Doctrine, and the 
conduct of Great Britain in Central America. 

The Clayton Bulwer treaty was transmitted by General 
Taylor to the Senate, April 18, 1850, and was ratified on the 
next day without much, if any, discussion, by a vote of forty- 
two senators for it to ten against it. Some senators, and it 
seems that Lewis Cass of Michigan was probably among that 
number, claimed that they understood that Great Britain, 
among other things, renounced all claims to Balize, or British 

The British government directed Sir Henry Bulwer to com- 
municate with our government, and state that Her Majesty's 
government had ratified the treaty on the express understand- 
ing that it did not include British Honduras. 

1 Appendix to Congressional Globe, Second Session, 1852, Vol. Ill, page 


Mr. Clayton in reply wrote Bulwer stating that it was so 
understood by this government. 

Mr. King, who was chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations at the time the treaty was reported to the Senate three 
years previous to this discussion, corroborated the former. 

Mr. Clayton undertook to show by maps and geographies 
that Balize was not in Central America, and therefore not em- 
braced in the treaty. He proceeded to argue that the message 
of Mr. Monroe was framed for the purpose of securing a 
declaration or resolution by Congress. He said the American 
government could be committed only by vote of both houses 
of Congress, approved by the president. 

The proposition recommended by Mr. Monroe was warmly 
opposed by the very Congress to which it was submitted. 
No such declaration was made or attempted to be made by 
Congress, but Mr. Clay, who was an ardent supporter of Mr. 
Monroe's administration, did, at the time, propose a resolution 
to the House of Representatives which was intended to approach 
a declaration, but even that failed. 

His resolution was that the people of these States would 
not see without serious inquietude any forcible interposition 
by the allied powers of Europe in behalf of Spain to reduce 
to their former subjection those parts of the continent of 
America which have proclaimed and established for them- 
selves respectively independent governments, and which have 
been solemnly recognized by the United States. 

Even had this passed, it was but a poor response to the 
recommendation. It did not adopt Mr. Monroe's language or 
its equivalent, and it restricted the inquietude we should feel 
to the case of a forcible interposition by the allied powers to 
aid Spain. But Mr. Clay's resolution even when thus diluted, 
backed by all the influence he and Mr. Webster exerted on 
the occasion, never passed the House of Representatives. 1 

Mr. Clayton then quoted from the speech of James K. Polk 
on the Panama mission as follows : 

1 Appendix Congressional Globe, Third Session Senate, 32nd Congress, 
Vol. XXVII, pages 254, 255. 


" When the message of the late President Monroe of the 
United States was communicated to Congress, it was viewed 
as it should have been, as the mere expression of opinion of 
the executive, submitted to the consideration and deliberation 
of Congress ; and designed, probably, to produce an effect 
upon the councils of the Holy Alliance in relation to their 
supposed intention to interfere in the war between Spain and 
her former colonies. 

" That effect it probably had an agency in producing, and 
if so, it had performed its office. 

" The president had no power to bind the nation by such a 
pledge. . . . 

" For one he never could agree to endanger the peace of 
the country by sending ministers to the Consultative Assembly 
at Panama." 

Mr. Clayton then paid his respects to James Buchanan in 
these words: 

" In the celebrated debate on the Panama mission, Mr. 
Buchanan opposed the mission on the same grounds. 

" Speaking of the Monroe declaration, Mr. Buchanan said : 
' It answered the purpose for which it was intended, and the 
danger which then threatened the Southern republics has since 
passed away. 

" ' This declaration contained no pledge to any Foreign 
Government. It left us perfectly free, but it has since been 
converted into such a pledge by Adams's administration, and 
although they have not formed formal alliances with the 
Southern republics, yet they have committed the country in 
honor to an alarming extent. 

" ' Mr. Clay has gone to such extremities in the cause of 
these republics, that in this particular, prudent men would 
feel disposed to compliment his heart at the expense of his 
understanding.' " * 

Mr. Clayton, having made the foregoing quotation from Mr. 
Buchanan's speech, proceeded as follows: 

1 Appendix Congressional Globe, Third Session Senate, 32nd Congress, Vol. 
XXVII, pages 254, 255. 


" Mr. Buchanan's complaint against Mr. Clay, which, he 
thought, went to show the weakness of Mr. Clay's head, was 
this ; that he had instructed Mr. Poinsett to bring to the notice 
of the Mexican Government that the United States had 
pledged themselves not to permit any other power to interfere 
with the independence or form of governments of the Spanish 

Further on in his speech, Mr. Clayton said : 1 

" During the administration of Mr. Polk, the British aggres- 
sions in Central America were constantly increasing. The 
attack in 1848 was made just six days after the treaty of Gua- 
dalupe Hidalgo, by which we acquired California. It blocked 
our passage to the Pacific. The war with Mexico was ended, 
the army of Taylor was unemployed. If it were desirable to 
prove the truth of the Monroe Doctrine to the British, a few 
philosophers could have been selected from the army of occu- 
pation who would have made most convincing arguments." 

The following extract is from the speech of Mr. Clayton in 
the Senate in March, 1853 : 2 

" Indulge me in a few more words to close the history of the 
Monroe Doctrine. On the 20th of April, 1826, the House of 
Representatives adopted an amendment to a resolution declar- 
ing it expedient to appropriate the funds necessary to enable 
the president to send ministers to Panama, which amendment 
was indeed a complete negation of the whole Monroe Doctrine. 
This amendment was carried by a party vote, all the leading 
men then belonging to the Jackson party voting against the 
Monroe declaration and in favor of the amendment, and all the 
leading men supporting Adams's administration voting against 
the amendment. 

" This amendment, which was a complete stifier of the whole 
Monroe declaration, obtained ninety-nine votes, among which 
were those of Messrs. Buchanan, Forsyth, Houston, Ingham, 
McDuffie, McLane, and Polk. It is very remarkable that the 

1 Appendix Congressional Globe, Third Session Senate, 32nd Congress, VoL 
XXVII, pages 254, 255. 

2 Ibid. 



Democracy, at the very origin of their present party, totally 
repudiated the whole declaration, and came into power on the 
principle of Washington's doctrine of non-intervention. It has 
been often said, and there is much reason to believe, that Mr. 
Adams, who was Secretary of State at the time Mr. Monroe 
proposed the doctrine, was entitled to the paternity of it. Mr. 
Calhoun once intimated so much in the Senate. It was the 
principal topic of discussion in Congress during the administra- 
tion of Adams, and it was generally believed at the time that 
the reassertion of the Monroe principle, in Mr. Poinsett's in- 
structions and in the course adopted by the advocates of 
Mr. Adams in favor of the Panama mission, drove Adams from 
power and secured the election of President Jackson, whose 
party, shortly after his election, assumed the name of the 
Democratic party. Among his most ardent advocates was 
Mr. Van Buren, the great Corypheus of that party, who, in a 
speech in the Senate opposing the Panama mission and the 
Monroe Doctrine, said : 

" ' I will venture to affirm that there is not a member on this 
floor who will avow his willingness to enter into a stipulation 
to resist attempts by the European Powers to colonize any 
portion of this continent. If mistaken,' said Van Buren, ' I de- 
sire to be corrected. No; I am not. No; thank Heaven, a 
policy so opposite to all the feelings of the American people, 
so adverse, as I firmly believe it to be, to its true interests, has 
no friend, at least no advocate, on this floor.' 

" This speech was pronounced the ablest delivered in Con- 
gress since Mr. Pinckney's reply to Mr. King. I could fill vol- 
umes from the speeches of Mr. Hayne, Mr. Rives, Mr. McLane, 
Mr. Calhoun, and all the ancient leaders of the Democratic 
party against this Monroe Doctrine. But I will not longer, 
and in this manner, trespass upon your patience by the intro- 
duction of their opinions. The Senator from Michigan (Mr. 
Cass) was perfectly correct when he said that this declaration 
of Mr. Monroe had lain, ever since its origin, a dead letter on 
our records. His recent attempt to revive it by his resolution 
at the last session closes the history of the Monroe Doctrine. 
That resolution met with such violent opposition from his 
own party as to give us the assurance that no president who 


should undertake to act upon it could be sustained. With all 
similar resolutions, recommendations, and declarations, it was 
consigned to that same ancient vault where all the kindred of 
the Capulets lie." x 

Senator Clayton referred to Martin Van Buren as the great 
Corypheus of the Democratic party. The Corypheus in the 
theatres of ancient Athens was not only the leader of the 
chorus, but the prompter, scene decorator, and scene shifter. 
Subsequently, as the taste of the Grecians grew more fastidious, 
a division of labor took place, and the Corypheus became only 
the leader of the dramatic chorus. 

It is to be regretted that Mr. Douglas, the "Little Giant," 
cannot be quoted at some length. Much of his speech bore 
on points not here under consideration, such as the Hise treaty 
and the Bay Islands affair, which has been already discussed. 
He dealt sledge-hammer blows, however, in favor of the 
Monroe declaration, and the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty. The sturdy little Westerner maintained the Monroe 
declaration and fought the treaty and sought its annulment. 
He labored in season and out of season, in the Senate and 
before the people. 

Mr. Mason of Virginia directed his argument very largely to 
the conduct of the British government in seizing the Bay 
Islands. He showed very conclusively that this action of 
Great Britain was a clear breach of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. 

Mr. Clayton's comments on the administration of James K. 
Polk in its failure to take action in regard to the seizure of 
the port of San Juan and the Mosquito Coast in Central Amer- 
ica by Great Britain, were unjust. This seizure occurred, as 
he stated, after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty 
was ratified by both the governments of the United States and 
Mexico, and the proclamation of peace by President Polk fol- 
lowed immediately on July 4, 1848. His successor, Taylor, 
was inaugurated the following March. 

1 Appendix Congressional Globe, Third Session Senate, 32nd Congress, Vol. 
XXVII, pages 254, 255. 


For want of telegraphic communications, as well as of rail- 
roads in that section, the news of the action of Great Britain 
was probably never officially brought to the attention of this 
government during the incumbency of President Polk. 

Such matters are usually preceded by lengthy diplomatic 
negotiations before there is a resort to arms. 

A similar case may be cited. The allied forces of Spain, 
France, and Great Britain took possession of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 
in December, 1861. The conquest of Mexico followed, and 
Maximilian was, as he supposed, firmly seated on the throne 
as emperor, although his government had not been formally 
recognized by the United States. The minister and consuls 
of the Republic of Mexico were received by this government 
as holding the proper credentials. 

The first diplomatic correspondence on the subject of the 
Empire of Mexico and the French occupation was a letter from 
William H. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bigelow, 
Minister to France, dated September 6, 1865. This letter 
was couched in such phrase as to have no bearing on any sup- 
posed foreign policy of the United States. It related rather 
to the danger of conflict between the United States and the 
French armies in consequence of their occupation of contigu- 
ous territory. 

Mr. Seward, in his letter of November 6, 1865, to Mr. Bige- 
low, was more explicit. He stated that " the presence and 
operations of the French army in Mexico, and its maintenance 
of an authority there, is of serious concern to the United States. 
Nevertheless, the objection of the United States is still broader, 
and includes the authority itself which the French army is thus 
maintaining. That authority is in direct antagonism to the 
policy of this government, and the principles on which it is 

This diplomatic correspondence continued for nearly two 
years, and was brought to a close about the time of the execu- 
tion of the Emperor Maximilian, which took place on June 19, 
1867, in the city of Queretaro. 

Under all the circumstances, no criticism of the administra- 


tion of Lincoln could be justly made in regard to the French 
occupation of Mexico, and in regard to the Mexican empire, 
although these events cover a period of about six years. 

Mr. Polk in his messages to Congress, showed himself to be 
devoted to the principles advocated by Mr. Monroe, and always 
referred to our foreign policy as enunciated by Mr. Monroe as 
being applicable to the North American continent, and never 
extended it to the entire hemisphere. 1 

Mr. Clayton's criticisms of the action of the friends of Andrew 
Jackson in refusing to commit the government of the United 
States by treaty stipulations at the Panama Congress are un- 
just, for the formation of a league offensive and defensive 
between the government of the United States and the Southern 
republics against Europe would have been the very acme of 
folly and madness on the part of this government. 

It would have been a scheme in which the United States 
would have done all the fighting and incurred all the odium 
and all the disasters of such an undertaking. When one 
comes to analyze it, our foreign policy popularly called the 
Monroe Doctrine is, as Mr. Seward said to Mr. Bigelow, the 
policy of this government and the principles on which it is 

1 « 

Messages of the Presidents," Vol. IV, pages 39S, 540, 582. 



The Mexican War closed with General Zachary Taylor as a 
great military hero in the eyes of the people. His soldiers 
familiarly called him "Old Rough and Ready." Though an 
officer in the regular army, he was not educated at West 
Point or any other military school. He practically had no 
education, being able only to read and write. 

When the Whig Convention met at Philadelphia, June I, 
1848, the friends of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, re- 
spectively, insisted upon the claims of those eminent states- 
men. They portrayed the injustice of setting them aside for 
the mushroom popularity of a mere military chieftain, "an 
ignorant frontier colonel," as Mr. Webster called him, who 
had neither experience nor knowledge of civil affairs, and 
who had not voted in forty years, as he himself admitted. 

Henry Wilson of Massachusetts and a few other delegates 
withdrew from the convention when Taylor's nomination was 
made. One of the grounds on which they justified their 
withdrawal was the charge that he was so unqualified by 
natural talent or acquired experience for the office of presi- 
dent that "his nomination was not fit to be made," as was 
subsequently said in a public speech by Mr. Webster. 

General Taylor was inaugurated as president, however, 
and whether he had or had not the distinguished ability to 
pilot this country successfully through the storms of that 
period is a question that was left unsolved by his death, 
which occurred after one year of official life. 

He may not have possessed the culture of many of his 
critics, but his sturdy honesty and good common-sense and 
his courage and patriotism were sufficient to cover a multitude 
of shortcomings. 


After his inauguration as president, he appointed John M. 
Clayton, of Delaware, Secretary of State. Mr. Clayton was 
a man of education, had practised law, had been Chief Jus- 
tice of Delaware for three years, and had served in the United 
States Senate for a period of about fourteen years prior to his 
appointment as Secretary. After his brief service in Taylor's 
cabinet, he was again elected in 185 1 to a seat in the Senate, 
and continued in that body until his death, in 1856. As a 
lawyer in his earlier life, he was noted for his skill in trials 
before a jury, and in the cross-examination of witnesses in 
criminal cases. He secured a place among the leaders in the 
Senate by his skill in the discussion of public questions. 

Sir Henry Bulwer was about five years younger than 
Clayton. His title was Baron Dalling and Bulwer, or Lord 
Dalling. He was a man of illustrious ancestry and, like his 
brother, Bulwer Lytton, was an accomplished writer. He 
served in the army for a short time, and then quitted the 
camp for the court. He entered the field of diplomacy in 
the year 1827, and from that date to the year 1865, he was 
constantly engaged in this field, and was ranked among the 
subtlest intellects of his time as a master of diplomacy. 

He had served about six years as minister to Spain 
before he was sent as minister to Washington in 1849. 
Great Britain had showered honors thick and fast upon him 
for his masterful management of affairs with Spain. A man 
of wonderful tact, always observant, but apparently indiffer- 
ent, always vigilant, but seemingly phlegmatic, he closed 
with this government a treaty which has proven to be more 
unsatisfactory than all the other treaties which have been 
made since the founding of this republic. Seemingly giving 
us all things, he gave us nothing and at the same time took 
away from us that which we already had. Having tied up 
this country by the terms of a treaty, his own government at 
once proceeded to violate it, for the seizure of the Bay Islands 
by Great Britain, contrary to the plain provisions of the con- 
tract, took place immediately after the Clayton-Bulwer treaty 
was made and ratified by the two governments. 


There has never been any condonation or waiver of this 
breach of the contract on the part of the United States. On 
the other hand, the British government ignored all our claims 
and protestations in respect to the seizure of the Bay Islands, 
and war between the two countries was averted only by the 
action of the Republic of Honduras in despatching an am- 
bassador to London, who secured the surrender of the Bay 
Islands through negotiations to which the United States was 
not a party, and after the negotiations of this government 
had become finally unsuccessful. 

The rule of law applicable to contracts is that where one 
party violates the contract in a material part, this justifies 
the other contracting party in treating the entire contract 
as abrogated. Great Britain having violated the Clayton- 
Bulwer treaty in a material part by seizing the Bay Islands, 
the United States would have been justified in regarding the 
entire treaty as a nullity. 



President Martin Van Buren was a member of the United 
States Senate and participated in the protracted debate which 
arose upon the message of John Quincy Adams on the subject 
of the Panama mission. 

Mr. Van Buren declared that Mr. Monroe had not pledged 
the United States to any course whatever, and never intended 
to do so, 1 and other statesmen expressed similar views. From 
these opinions a writer in the "National Intelligencer" of 
Washington drew the following conclusions : 

i. The Monroe declaration of 1823, in both its phases, 
had its origin in the changed relations and new responsi- 
bilities imposed upon the several States of the American 
continents, arising especially from the emancipation of the 
Spanish colonies. 

2. The Monroe declaration, in so far as it related to the 
threatened intervention of the Holy Alliance in the concerns 
of the Spanish-American States, was intended to meet a par- 
ticular contingency of events, and therefore passed away with 
the occasion which called it forth. 

3. The Monroe Doctrine, in so far as it relates to the 
colonization of the American continents by any European 
power, was not intended to bind the United States to guard 
the territory of the New World from such occupation by 
European States, but was intended to indicate, as an impor- 
tant principle of American public policy, that "each State 
should guard by its own means against the establishment of 
any future European colony" within the jurisdiction of its 
flag. That is, the American continents were no longer held 
open to colonization as derelict territory, capable of occupa- 
tion by right of discovery and settlement. 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, page 643. 


4. The Monroe Doctrine was not in any of its aspects a 
pledge committing the government of the United States to 
any line of policy beyond that which seemed expedient and 
necessary at the time of its announcement. As Mr. Van 
Buren well said, "no declaration of the Executive could have 
this effect," and none such was "intended by Mr. Monroe." l 

When Chile was at war with Spain, and after the city of 

Valparaiso had been bombarded and burned by the Spanish 

fleet, our minister to Chile sent a despatch to Mr. Seward, 

our Secretary of State, and received from him the following 

reply : 

Department of State, Washington, 
June 2nd, 1866. 

To Judson Kilpatrick, 

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. 

Sir, — Your dispatch of May 2nd, No. 7, has been received. 
I appreciate your solicitude that the course of proceeding 
which this government has pursued in regard to the war 
between Chile and Spain should be understood and appre- 
ciated. Perhaps, however, the difficulty in the way of such 
appreciation results from the peculiar circumstances of Chile. 
Her statesmen and people, like the statesmen and people of 
all countries, may be expected to interpret, not only the 
rights of that republic, but the capacities and duties of other 
states, in the light of their own interests and wishes. 

The policy of the United States in regard to the several 
Spanish-American States is, or ought to be, well known 
now, after the exposition it has received during the last five 
years. We avoid in all cases, giving encouragement to 
expectations which, in the varying course of events, we 
might find ourselves unable to fulfil, and we desire to be 
known as doing more than we promise, rather than of falling 
short of our engagements. 

On the other hand, we maintain and insist, with all the 
decision and energy compatible with our existing neutrality, 
that the republican system which is accepted by the people 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, page 644. 


in any one of those states shall not be wantonly assailed, and 
that it shall not be subverted as an end of a lawful war by 
European powers. We thus give to those republics the moral 
support of a sincere, liberal, and we think it will appear a 
useful friendship. We could claim from foreign states no 
concession to our own political, moral and material prin- 
ciples, if we should not conform to our own proceedings in the 
needful intercourse with foreign states to the just rules of 
the laws of nations. 

We therefore concede to every nation the right to make 
peace or war for such causes, other than political or ambitious, 
as it thinks right and wise. 

In such wars as are waged between nations which are in 
friendship with ourselves, if they are not pushed, like the 
French war in Mexico, to the political point before men- 
tioned, we do not intervene, but remain neutral, conceding 
nothing to one belligerent that we do not concede to the 
other, and allowing to one belligerent what we allow to the 

Every complaint made by the Chilian agents of an attempt 
on the part of Spain to violate the neutrality of the United 
States has been carefully and kindly investigated, and we 
have done the same — no more no less — in regard to the 
complaints instituted against the neutrality of the agents of 
Chile. We certainly thought it was an act of friendship on 
our part that we obtained assurances from Spain at the 
beginning, and at the other stages of the present war, that 
in any event her hostilities against Chile should not be 
prosecuted beyond the limits which I have before described. 
We understand ourselves to be now and henceforth ready to 
hold Spain to this agreement, if, contrary to our present 
expectations, it should be found necessary. In this we think 
we are acting a part certainly not unfriendly to Chile. It 
was thought to be an act of friendship when we used our good 
offices with both parties to prevent the war. We have thought 
that we were acting a friendly part, using the same good 
offices to secure an agreement for peace without dishonor or 
even damage to Chile. 

Those who think that the United States could enter as an 



ally into every war in which a friendly republican state on 
this continent became involved, forget that peace is the con- 
stant interest and unswerving policy of the United States. 
They forget the frequency and variety of wars in which our 
friends in this hemisphere engage themselves, entirely inde- 
pendent of all control or counsel of the United States. We 
have no armies for the purpose of aggressive war, no ambi- 
tion for the character of a regulator. Our Constitution 
is not an imperial one, and does not allow the executive 
government to engage in war, except upon the well-con- 
sidered and deliberate decree of the Congress of the United 

A Federal Government, consisting of thirty-six equal 
states, which are in many respects self-governing, cannot 
easily be committed by its representatives to foreign wars, 
either of sympathy or of ambition. If there is any one char- 
acteristic of the United States which is more marked than 
any other, it is that they have, from the time of Washington, 
adhered to the principle of non-intervention and have perse- 
veringly declined to seek or contract entangling alliances, 
even with the most friendly states. 

It would be pleasant to the United States to know that the 
government and people of Chile have come to a correct under- 
standing of our attitude and feeling toward them. Nor do 
we fear that injurious misapprehensions can long prevail 
among the enlightened and spirited people of that state. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) William H. Seward. 1 

When General Grant was president, he extended the 
Monroe Doctrine so as to deny the right of any foreign 
government to transfer its possessions on this continent to 
another foreign government. In his message of May 28, 
1870, relating to San Domingo, he says: 

"The Doctrine promulgated by President Monroe has been 
adhered to by all political parties, and I now deem it proper 
to assert the equally important principle that hereafter no 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, page 267. 


territory on this continent shall be regarded as subject of 
transfer to a European power." 1 

This principle may now be considered as being incorpo- 
rated into the Monroe Doctrine and as a part of it as now 

Grant says "this continent" where he refers to an island, 
while Monroe took in the whole Western Hemisphere. Polk, 
in his message of December 2, 1845, refers to this doctrine 
in such terms as would indicate that it related to this conti- 
nent alone. 

1 « 

Messages of the Presidents," Vol. VII, page 61. 



Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, in his letter dated 
November 6, 1865, to our minister at the French court, 

"The presence and operations of the French army in 
Mexico, and its maintenance of an authority there, is a cause 
of serious concern to the United States. Nevertheless the 
objection of the United States is still broader, and includes 
the authority which the French army is thus maintaining. 
That authority is in direct antagonism to the policy of this 
government and the principles on which it is founded." 1 

Here is a solemn declaration by one of the greatest diplo- 
mats which this country ever produced, to the effect that 
what we now are pleased to call the Monroe Doctrine is as 
old as the republic itself, and that it constitutes one of the 
foundation stones on which our institutions are constructed. 
We do not see these principles written in the Declaration of 
Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or in the Con- 
stitution of the United States, although their inspirations 
reach us from the Mayflower and the colonies founded by 
William Penn. 

The best part of every nation's history remains as yet 
unwritten. This is especially true of the United States. 
We have been preserving but little more than the froth and 
foam produced by times of excitement, while much that is 
noblest and grandest in our history has been perishing. 

Mr. Seward was in a situation to know more about the 
origin of our foreign policy than any of his contemporaries. 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1865, page 320. 


He was a practising lawyer when Monroe made his famous 
declaration, and had an intimate knowledge of our national 
history. He was Secretary of State in troublous times, when 
he was often compelled to ransack the archives of the State 
department from the formation of the government down to 
his day for precedents. 

Mr. Seward's assertion is well sustained by historical frag- 
ments which, when fairly and honestly interwoven with other 
historical facts, go far to establish its truth. 

Washington promulgated the doctrine which Monroe, in a 
more extended form, enunciated some* thirty years later; for 
Washington's proclamation of neutrality in European affairs 
was itself the foundation of our foreign policy. This neu- 
trality carried with it the implication that it would be con- 
trary to the policy of this government to permit European 
powers to intermeddle in the affairs of the New World. 

France had done so much to aid the colonies in establish- 
ing their independence that, when war was declared between 
France and England, it seemed next to impossible that 
Washington could maintain a position of neutrality. In 
March or April of 1793, the news of this declaration reached 
this country, and perplexing questions arose in regard to our 
relations to France under existing treaties. These treaties 
provided for the payment of our debt to France, and also for 
the guarantee of the French possessions on this continent, 
and for a defensive alliance. 

Washington pointed out that the war was not a defensive 
one, and that it therefore did not obligate this government to 
become an ally of France. He took into consideration not 
only the unsettled condition of affairs in France, but also the 
change of the government from a monarchy to a republic, and 
its probable want of permanency. The colonial character of 
the treaties gave them the appearance of being legacies of 
the past which could well be put aside. 

The misconduct of the French minister Genet, in fitting 
out privateers at Charleston to prey upon British commerce, 
his assaults upon the administration, and his insults to our 


government, were a part of the difficulties which Washington 
had to encounter when he laid the foundation stone of neu- 
trality in European affairs. He started out boldly and 
vigorously with a foreign policy of neutrality, which was 
resolutely followed by Mr. Adams, his successor. Thus the 
old colonial spirit and purpose were broken, and the United 
States became wholly separated from the affairs of Europe. 

Coupled with the principle of neutrality was the principle \ 
of expansion. The idea of the control of the Mississippi and 
the Southwest was advocated by Alexander Hamilton long 
before Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase. Hamilton 
expected to win by arms what Jefferson later acquired by 
purchase. Moreover, the idea of placing the United States 
at the head of affairs in the Western Hemisphere originated 
during Washington's administration. 

Hamilton, in one of his articles in "The Federalist," it 
is said, wrote thus: "Our situation invites and our situation 
prompts us to aim at an ascendant in American affairs." 
This result could only be obtained by crushing out European 
influence in the Western Hemisphere. Here is a distinct 
announcement that our neutrality in European affairs is 
coupled with the principle that Europe shall be neutral in 
American affairs or the affairs of the New World. The 
Monroe declaration was the mere restatement of the original 
and fundamental policy of the government in another form. 

This idea of neutrality in regard to European affairs did 
not originate in Washington's mind with the condition of war 
between France and England, for before he became president 
he wrote to Sir Edward Newenham as follows: 

" I hope the United States of America will be able to keep 
disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and wars; 
and that before long they will, by the adoption of a good 
national government, have become respectable in the eyes of 
the world, so that none of the maritime powers, especially 
none of those who hold possessions in the New World or the 
West Indies, shall presume to treat them with insult or con- 
tempt. It should be the policy of the United States to 


administer their wants without being engaged in their 
quarrels. And it is not in the power of the proudest and 
most polite people on earth to prevent us from becoming a 
great, a respectable, and a commercial nation, if we shall 
continue united and faithful to ourselves." 1 

Washington wrote Jefferson prior to the ratification of the 
Constitution as follows: " An energetic general government 
must prevent the several states from involving themselves in 
the political disputes of the European powers." 2 

Something over a year after he became president, Wash- 
ington wrote to Lafayette as follows : 

"Gradually recovering from the distresses in which the 
war left us, patiently advancing in our task of civil govern- 
ment, unentangled in the crooked politics of Europe, wanting 
scarcely anything but the free navigation of the Mississippi, 
which we must have, and as certainly shall have if we remain 
a nation." 3 

The old Federalist party, under the leadership of Washing- 
ton and Hamilton, took the new republic entirely out of the 
European system of which the colonies had always formed a 
part. A treaty of peace had been signed and the colonists 
became independent, but they continued to be dominated 
by colonial ideas and prejudices, which left them with the 
impression that they were still in some way a part of the 
European political system. 

Washington and Hamilton caused a revolution in the 
habits of thought among the American people by isolating 
this country from Europe in all respects, except in regard 
to commerce. They did more than this ; they set the pace 
whereby the country could move steadily forward, and expand 
and drive out European governments from any participation 
in the affairs of government in the New World. 

Mr. Seward was correct when he said that the authority 

1 " Life of Washington," by Lodge, Vol. II, page 133. 

2 Gilman's " James Monroe," page 166. 

8 "Life of Washington," by Lodge, Vol. II, page 165. 


then being exercised by the French in Mexico was in direct 
antagonism to the policy of this government and the prin- 
ciples on which it was founded. 

There can be but little doubt that the general consensus of 
opinion among American statesmen was that the true foreign 
policy of the United States should be one of isolation and 
separation from European nations. These views were shared 
more or less by English statesmen who had a comprehensive 
knowledge of American affairs, and among these was Gover- 
nor Thomas Pownall, who emigrated from England to this 
country in 1753. He was appointed governor of the Colony 
of Massachusetts Bay in 1757. He was appointed lieutenant- 
governor of New Jersey in 1760, and later, governor of South 
Carolina. He returned to England in 1761, was made comp- 
troller-general of expenditures of the army in Germany, and 
in 1768 became a member of Parliament, which position he 
held for twelve years, and opposed the measures of the gov- 
ernment against the colonies. He retired in 1780, and in 
1781 published a work entitled "A Memorial to the Sov- 
ereigns of Europe on the State of Affairs between the Old 
and the New World." 

Pownall, in his book, said that "America must avoid com- 
plication with European politics" and "the entanglement of 
alliances, having no connections with Europe other than 
commercial." * 

John Adams, in his inaugural address of March 4, 1797, 
and in his' second annual address of December 8, 1798, takes 
strong ground against foreign entanglements. He congratu- 
lates the country in the latter address upon the " spirit which 
has arisen in our country against the menaces and aggressions 
of a foreign nation," and says that "a manly sense of national 
honor, dignity and independence has appeared." 

Washington would have met with no opposition in his 

neutrality policy but for the fact of our obligations to France. 

Jefferson, who was more tolerant than Washington of the 

conduct of Genet, the mercurial French ambassador, was as 

1 Gilman's "James Monroe," pages 165, 167. 


resolutely in favor of a foreign policy which isolated America 
from European controversies and alliances, for his position 
is defined in his letters to Thomas Paine and William Short, 
both written in 1801. 

In his letter to William Short of August 4, 1820, he favors 
"a cordial fraternization among all the American nations," 
and mentions "the importance of their coalescing in an 
American system of policy, totally independent of and 
unconnected with that of Europe." 1 

The Louisiana territory had been ceded by France to 
Spain prior to the revolution in the year 1762. Napoleon 
compelled Spain to retrocede it to France in a secret treaty. 
This treaty was made in October, 1800, but a few weeks after 
Napoleon had concluded the treaty with the United States to 
which reference has been made. 

The Spanish officials in the Louisiana territory had not 
been removed nor exchanged for French officials. In short, 
Spain had ceded the Louisiana territory, but France had not 
formally taken possession. When the facts of this secret 
cession by Spain to France became known, excitement ran 
high in the United States. 

Mr. Jefferson wrote to Ambassador Livingston at Paris 
saying: "This cession completely reverses all political re- 
lations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in 
our political course. . . . There is on the globe one spot, 
the possessor of which is our natural enemy; and that spot 
is New Orleans." 2 

Alexander Hamilton wrote to Pinckney, December 29, 
1802, saying: "You know my general view of Western 
affairs. I have always held that the unity of the empire and 
the best interests of our nation require that we should annex 
to the United States all the territory east of the Mississippi, 
New Orleans included." 3 

Hamilton also wrote an article which was published in the 
"Evening Post," signed "Pericles," in which he said: 

1 Oilman's "James Monroe," page 171. 

2 McMaster's " History of the United States," Vol. II, page 620. 

8 Von Hoist's "Constitutional History of the United States," Vol. I, page 184. 


" Two courses only present themselves. 

"First: Negotiate and endeavor to purchase, and if this 
fails, go to war. 

"Second: To seize at once on the Floridas and New 
Orleans, and then negotiate." 

Jefferson, in his letter of April 18, 1802, to Mr. Living- 
ston, said : " The day France took possession of New Orleans, 
the ancient friendship between her and the United States 
ended. Alliance with Great Britain became necessary." 1 

Jefferson, in his message of December 15, 1802, said: 
"The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to 
France, which took place in the course of the late war, 
will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of 
our foreign relations which will doubtless have just weight 
in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with that 

In his message of January 11, 1803, Jefferson said: 

"Gentlemen of the Senate: The cession of the Span- 
ish Province of Louisiana to France, and perhaps of the 
Floridas, and the late suspension of our right of deposit at 
New Orleans are events of primary interest to the United 
States. On both occasions such measures were promptly 
taken as were thought most likely amicably to remove the 
present and to prevent future causes of inquietude. The 
objects of these measures were to obtain the territory on 
the left bank of the Mississippi and eastward of that, if 
practicable, on conditions to which the proper authorities of 
our country would agree, or at least to prevent any changes 
which might lessen the secure exercise of our rights. While 
my confidence in our minister plenipotentiary at Paris is 
entire and undiminished, I still think that these objects 
might be promoted by joining with him a person sent from 
hence directly, carrying with him the feelings and sentiments 
of the nation excited on the late occurrence, impressed by 
full communications of all the views we entertain on this 
interesting subject, and thus prepared to meet and to im- 

1 McMaster's " History of the United States," Vol. II, page 620. 


prove to an useful result the counter propositions of the 
other contracting party, whatsoever form their interests may 
give to them, and to secure to us the ultimate accomplish- 
ment of our object." 1 

Napoleon feared an alliance between Great Britain and the 
United States. This led up to the sale on such favorable 
terms, and of more territory than Mr. Jefferson contemplated. 
When the sale was made on April 30, 1803, for fifteen mil- 
lions of dollars, Napoleon remarked that "this accession of 
territory strengthens forever the power of the United States, 
and I have just given to England a maritime rival that will 
sooner or later humble her pride." 2 

Information reached Madison of a character that he re- 
garded as authentic, that Great Britain was about to pur- 
chase from Spain that strip of territory east of the Perdido 
River, now constituting West Florida. 

He accordingly, in his message of January 3, 181 1, directed 
the attention of Congress to this matter, and among other 
things said: 


"Taking into view the tenor of these several communica- 
tions, the posture of things with which they are connected, 
the intimate relations of the country adjoining the United 
States eastward of the Perdido River to their security and 
tranquillity, and the peculiar interest they have in its des- 
tiny, I recommend to the consideration of Congress the 
seasonableness of a declaration that the United States could 
not see without serious inquietude, any part of a neighbor- 
ing territory in which they have, in different respects, so 
deep and so just a concern pass from the hands of Spain 
into those of any other foreign power." 3 

In pursuance of this message, Congress immediately passed 
the following joint resolution : 

1 "Messages of the Presidents," Vol. I, pages 350, 351. 

2 Stephen's " History of the United States," page 285. 
8 " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. I, page 488. 


"Taking into view the peculiar situation of Spain, and her 
American provinces, and considering the influence which the 
destiny of the territory adjoining the southern border of the 
United States may have upon security, tranquillity, and com- 
merce, therefore 

" Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States in Congress assembled, 

"That the United States, under the peculiar circumstances 
of the existing crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see 
any part of the said territory pass into the hands of any for- 
eign power, and that a due regard to their own safety compels 
them to provide, under certain contingencies, for the tempo- 
rary occupation of the said territory." 1 

The Senate and House at the same time declare that the 
said territory shall, in their hands, remain subject to future 
negotiations. The policy of Washington in regard to neu- 
trality and the control of the Mississippi River; the action of 
this government under Jefferson in regard to the Louisiana 
territory; and the action of Madison and Congress in regard 
to West Florida, establish the fact that the foreign policy 
of this government had become established long before Mr. 
Monroe became president. 

The term " Monroe Doctrine " simply became a 1 new name 
for an old policy of the government. It was a policy recog- 
nized by Congress and sustained by the Federal and Anti- 
federal parties, as it now is by the Republican and Democratic 

One of the debatable questions of the present day is 
whether James Monroe or John Quincy Adams was the 
author of the Monroe Doctrine. A review of the history 
of this country prior to Monroe's administration shows that 
neither of them was its author. They were mere driftwood 
which had fallen into the stream and had been swept along 
in its current. 

As to the message itself, it was the work of many minds 

1 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. II, page 666. 


which had united into an agreement in respect to its form 
and substance, and when this was done it is immaterial what 
scrivener may have reduced it to writing. 

Mr. Canning, on behalf of Great Britain, had no small part 
in the affair which led up to the promulgation of this now 
famous message. When Canning entered upon his duties as 
Foreign Secretary, he found that Castlereagh was swinging 
Great Britain around into the Holy Alliance. He deter- 
mined at once to reverse all this. Russia was the most im- 
portant factor with which he had to deal, and he induced her, 
in keeping with her interests and predilections, to unite with 
Great Britain against Turkey, in favor of the independence of 

Then followed the Monroe message, which opens with the 
grave situation of affairs in respect to the Pacific coast boun- 
dary with Russia and Great Britain. Before taking up the 
matters of the Holy Alliance in his message, Monroe devotes 
quite a lengthy paragraph to "the heroic struggles of the 
Greeks," and expresses his hopes "that Greece will become 
an independent nation." 

This seemingly unwarranted interference in European 
affairs was but the subtle language of diplomacy whereby 
Russia might become detached from the Holy Alliance 
by the combined efforts of Great Britain and the United 

Mr. Canning doubtless prompted this paragraph concerning 
Greece, and possibly the one in relation to Russia. Lord 
Byron's aversion to Lord Castlereagh grew out of the lat- 
ter' s opposition to the independence of Greece. Mr. Can- 
ning secured a coalition between Great Britain and Russia, 
which resulted in the independence of Greece. 

The Monroe message, if not inspired by Mr. Canning in 
whole or part, was at least in conformity with his general 
policy which secured such prestige for Great Britain at home 
and upon the Continent, and which gave her control of the 
commerce with Spanish America. 

The writers who assert that "the Monroe Doctrine has 


always failed of legislative confirmation" 1 are in error; be- 
cause it has been pointed out that Congress in 1811 very 
promptly confirmed it in pursuance of Madison's message. 
The Congressional reiteration of a fundamental and estab- 
lished policy is unnecessary. 

1 Tucker's " Monore Doctrine," page 123. 



In his celebrated message of December 2, 1823, James Monroe 
did not confine himself to the schemes of the Holy Alliance 
with reference to the South American republics. 

Shortly after the conclusion of a treaty of peace between 
the United States and Great Britain, in the early part of the 
nineteenth century, a controversy arose between Russia and 
the United States in regard to the trade carried on by citizens 
of the latter with the natives of the North Pacific coast. 

In 1809 a desire was expressed by the Russian government 
for a settlement of the matter, and a correspondence ensued 
in which it was made known that the Russian-American Com- 
pany claimed the entire coast from Behring's Strait southward 
to and beyond the mouth of the Columbia River. Negotia- 
tions terminated at once when these extraordinary claims were 

On September 16, 182 1, the Emperor of Russia issued a 
ukase or edict interdicting all commercial vessels other than 
Russian within one hundred Italian miles of the shores to 
which the Russian government laid claim. The Russian gov- 
ernment in this document laid claim to the entire coast south 
to the fifty-first degree of north latitude. 

Great Britain and the United States were both very emphatic 
in their expressions of dissent. The United States claimed up 
to fifty-four degrees and forty minutes of north latitude against 
the claims of both Great Britain and Russia. Great Britain 
claimed a wide extent of territory bordering on the Pacific 
Ocean as against the claims both of the United States and 

Monroe, in his message of December 2, 1823, in that part of 
it which precedes several other subjects, including his message 


against the Holy Alliance, announces his non-colonization 
policy in these words : 

" At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, 
made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full 
power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister 
of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable 
negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations 
on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal 
has been made by his Imperial Majesty to the government of 
Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The gov- 
ernment of the United States has been desirous by this friendly 
proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have 
invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor, and their 
solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his govern- 
ment. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, 
and in the arrangements by which they may terminate, the 
occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle 
in which the rights and interests of the United States are in- 
volved, tliatthe A mcrican continents, by the free and independent 
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth 
not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any 
European powers." x 

Polk, in his message of December 2, 1845, quotes a portion 
of the foregoing text with great emphasis, and says that it 
should be distinctly announced to the world, as our settled 
policy, that no future European colony nor dominion shall 
with our consent be planted or established on any part of the 
North American continent. 

This boundary dispute was settled between this government 
and Great Britain by the treaty of June 15, 1846, in favor of 
the contentions of Great Britain, by making the forty-ninth 
parallel the boundary line, and after this settlement the battle 
cry of " Fifty-four, forty, or fight ! " was heard no more in 
political gatherings. 

1 " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. II, page 209. 


Nearly a quarter of a century after Monroe delivered his 
famous message, Polk in his message reiterates and quotes 
Monroe literally, to the effect that " the American continents 
are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future 
colonization by any European powers." The colonies re- 
ferred to are colonies which when formed would be under the 
dominion of the colonizing power. 

There is some very respectable authority which holds that 
Monroe went " altogether too far," to use the language of 
President Woolsey in Johnson's Cyclopedia, in his article on 
the " Monroe Doctrine." 

Our foreign policy is such that no European government 
which possesses an American colony can transfer it to any 
other European power. It is equally important that European 
governments should no longer be permitted to plant colonies 
in this hemisphere. It is a principle that lies at the very foun- 
dation of our policy. 

Germany is not violating our policy by encouraging German 
emigration to southern Brazil, because these emigrants are 
not under the dominion of the German empire. They may 
still owe their allegiance to Germany, but Brazil is a republic. 
If southern Brazil should be placed under the dominion of the 
German empire, then, and not until then, would our foreign 
policy be contravened. 

Colonization is not dead, as some writers have suggested. 
There are now no unclaimed nor derelict territories in the 
Western Hemisphere ; no territory which could be claimed by 
right of discovery; but colonization could take place on terri- 
tory obtained by European powers by contract or treaty. Such 
colonization would violate our foreign policy. 

This question of suffering or permitting colonization by 
European powers came up in connection with the affairs of 

On April 29, 1848, the president in a special message called 
the attention of Congress to the fact that the white population 
of Yucatan had called upon the United States for help against 
the Indians, who were waging against them a war of extermina- 



tion ; offering, if aid should be granted, to transfer the " do- 
minion and sovereignty " of the peninsula to the United States, 
and stating that similar appeals had been made " to the Spanish 
and the English governments." 

He further stated that while it was not his purpose to recom- 
mend a policy of acquisition, yet the situation of the peninsula 
of Yucatan was such as to render its transfer to any European 
power an element of danger to our peace and security; and 
he declared that he had authentic information, that if the aid 
were not granted by the United States, it would probably be 
obtained from some European power likely hereafter to assert 
a claim to " dominion and sovereignty " over Yucatan. 

The United States was at that time at war with Mexico, and 
the president admitted that Yucatan had never declared her 
independence, but was treated by this country as a State of 
the Mexican Republic. 

A bill to enable the president to take temporary military 
occupation of Yucatan was immediately introduced in the 
Senate. In the discussion which followed, Mr. Calhoun took 
an active -part, and as his speech is a limitation, if not a 
denial, of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine as generally 
understood, it deserves an extended notice. 

Mr. Calhoun made the following points : 

i. The declaration of Monroe that the extension of the 
European political system to this country would be regarded 
as dangerous to our peace and safety referred only to the 
Allied Powers ; and the events which called it forth have 
passed away forever. 

2. The declaration of Monroe that European interposition 
in the affairs of the new Spanish-American republics would 
be regarded as manifesting an unfriendly disposition toward 
the United States also belongs to the history of that day. But 
suppose this not to be the case, there is no evidence of any 
interposition in the affairs of Yucatan on the part of England 
or any other European power with the design of oppressing 
her or changing her destiny. Should England interpose, it 
would not be as a hostile power, but at the solicitation of 


Yucatan, and if she should assert her sovereignty, it would 
not bring the case within the declaration, because it would not 
be an interposition to change the government and oppress the 

3. President Polk plainly rests his recommendation upon 
the declaration of Monroe that the continents of America 
are not henceforth to be considered as subjects of colonization 
by any European power. " Colonization " means the estab- 
lishment of a settlement by emigrants from the parent country ; 
this is the case of " surrendered sovereignty " over a people 
already there. Yucatan would thus become a province or a 
"possession" of Great Britain, but not a colony. 

Mr. Calhoun then states his impression that this portion of 
the message originated with Mr. Adams, and never became a 
subject of deliberation in Mr. Monroe's cabinet. It was in- 
accurate in stating that these continents have asserted and 
maintained their freedom, because as a whole such was not 
the case; and it was improper when viewed in conjunction 
with the declaration which preceded it, because we were acting 
in concert with England on a proposition coming from herself, 
and hence the declaration should have been in accordance 
with British feeling. As it was, it so offended her that she 
refused to co-operate with us in settling the Russian question. 1 

William Plumer, who was a member of Congress during the 
Monroe administration, makes the following statement in his 

" I have strong reason to believe that this part of the mes- 
sage [that is, that relating to foreign affairs] bears the direct 
impress of Mr. Adams's genius. The ground assumed and the 
doctrines inculcated are certainly his, and if he did not write 
that part of the message (as the minister writes the king's 
speeches in England), I have little doubt that he submitted to 
the president in writing his views of what the message ought 
to contain so far as his department was concerned, and that 
the president, in preparing his message, followed very closely 
not only the views but the language of the secretary. 

1 Tucker's " Monroe Doctrine," pages 38 to 41. 


" Adams told me that the president had doubts about that 
part of it which related to the interference of the Holy Alliance 
with Spanish America; said he believed it had better be 
omitted, and asked him if he did not think so too? 

" Adams replied, ' You have my sentiments on the subject 
already, and I see no reason to alter them.' ' Well/ said the 
president, ' it is written, and I will not change it now.' This 
was a day or two before Congress met." 1 

It will be noted that Mr. Calhoun attributes the colonization 
feature of Monroe's message to John Quincy Adams, because 
he says it was never a subject of deliberation in Monroe's 
cabinet, of which Calhoun and Adams were both members. 

Mr. Plumer's statement attributes the entire message relat- 
ing to Foreign Affairs to John Quincy Adams, but there is 
nothing to be found among the papers of Mr. Adams which 
will aid us much in determining this question. He was at 
y Quincy, Mass., on September n, 1823. "There is no entry in 
his diary from September 11 to November 7, 1823. 

Monroe in his note to Adams, dated October 11, 1823, says: 
" Be so good as to send the copies mentioned in our meeting 
to-day of the correspondence between Mr. Rush and Mr. Can- 
ning, since I deem the subject of the highest importance." 

The letter of Rush to Adams of August 19, 1823, is marked 
" Rec'd 9th October." Among all the papers which can be 
collected there appears to be none which was written by Mr. 
Adams prior to October 9. 

The first business which these papers disclose of services 
performed by Mr. Adams relate to transactions which took 
place between him and Baron Tuyll on October 16, 1823. 
From this date until some time in December following, Mr. 
Adams had been very active, as shown by the manuscripts. 

Mr. Calhoun is doubtless correct about the fact that the 
colonization feature of the Monroe declaration was never dis- 
cussed in the cabinet meetings which had up for discussion 
the Holy Alliance and its purposes in this hemisphere. The 

1 Tucker's " Monroe Doctrine," page 22. 


colonization feature did not in any manner come up in 
that connection. It was a separate and independent matter 

Monroe, in the earlier part of his lengthy message, had under 
discussion the boundary line between Russian America, now 
Alaska, and the United States. Spain claimed as far north as 
Nootka Sound on the western shore of Vancouver's Island. 
Great Britain disputed this right, and the differences of the 
two powers were adjusted by the treaty of October 28, 1790. 
This treaty settled questions of trade with the natives, naviga- 
tion, and fishing, but determined nothing with regard to their 
respective rights of sovereignty. 

Spain ceded to the United States all her territory north of 
the forty-second parallel of latitude in the Florida Treaty of 
February 22, 18 19, and thereby the United States acquired 
whatever titles Spain possessed on the Pacific Coast north of 
this designated line. 

The claims of Russia extended south to the fifty-first parallel, 
according to the demands then set up, although, as before 
stated, in 1809 Russia had laid claim to all the territory as far 
south as the Columbia. 

On July 2, 1823, Mr. Adams wrote a letter to Mr. Rush on 
the subject of this boundary dispute between Great Britain, 
Russia, and the United States, from which the following is an 
extract : 

" These independent nations [that is, those of South America 
and Mexico] will possess the rights incident to that condition, 
and their territories will of course be subject to no exclusive 
right of navigation in their vicinity, or of access to them by 
any foreign nation. A necessary consequence of this state of 
things will be, that the American continents henceforth will no 
longer be subject to colonization. Occupied by civilized na- 
tions they will be accessible to Europeans and each other on 
that footing alone ; and the Pacific Ocean in every part of it 
will remain open to the navigation of all nations in like manner 
with the Atlantic." 1 

1 Tucker's " Monroe Doctrine," page 12. 


This quotation is made for the purpose of showing what was 
meant in the Monroe message by the " free and independent 
condition " phraseology in it, as well as to show that Adams's 
previous letter to Rush contained the substance of the Mon- 
roe message in respect to colonization. In so far as this 
letter is evidence it tends to show that John Quincy Adams 
was in fact the author of the Monroe declaration in respect to 

The principles which govern the rights of colonization are 
laid down by Vattel in the " Law of Nations " as follows : 

" There is another celebrated question, to which the discov- 
ery of the New World has principally given rise. It is asked 
whether a nation may lawfully take possession of some part of 
a vast country, in which there are none but erratic nations 
whose scanty population is incapable of occupying the whole. 

" We have already observed, in establishing the obligation 
to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively ap- 
propriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, 
or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their un- 
settled habitation in those immense regions cannot be ac- 
counted a true and legal possession ; and the people of Europe, 
too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages 
stood in no particular need, and of which they made no actual 
and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take possession of it, 
and settle it with colonies. 

" The earth, as we have already observed, belongs to mankind 
in general, and was designed to furnish them with subsistence; 
if each nation had, from the beginning, resolved to appropriate 
to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by 
hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be suffi- 
cient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants." 1 

Congress passed an act which is known as the " guano 
islands act," which was afterwards re-enacted in the revised 
statutes with certain amendments as follows : 

" Section 5570. Whenever any citizen of the United States 
discovers a deposit of guano on any island, rock, or key, not 

1 Vattel's "Law of Nations," Chitty's edition, page 101. 


within the lawful jurisdiction of any government, and not oc- 
cupied by the ^citizens of any other government, and takes 
peaceable possession thereof, and occupies the same, such 
island, rock, or key may, at the discretion of the president, be 
considered as appertaining to the United States. 

" Section 5576. All acts done and offenses or crimes com- 
mitted on any such island, rock, or key, by persons who may 
land thereon, or in the waters adjacent thereto, shall be deemed 
committed on high seas, on board a merchant ship or vessel 
belonging to the United States, and shall be punished accord- 
ing to the laws of the United States relating to such ships or 
vessels and offenses on the high seas, which laws, for the pur- 
pose aforesaid, are extended over such islands, rocks, or keys." 

In 1890, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Jones v. United States, 137 United States, 212, used the 
following language : 

"By the law of nations, recognized by all the civilized 
states, dominion of new territory may be acquired by discovery 
and occupation, as well as by cession or conquest; and when 
citizens or subjects of one nation, in its name, and by its au- 
thority or with its assent, take and hold actual, continuous and 
useful possession (although only for the purpose of carrying on 
a particular business, such as catching and curing fish, or 
working mines) of territory unoccupied by any other govern- 
ment or its citizens, the nation to which they belong may ex- 
ercise such jurisdiction and for such period as it sees fit over 
territory so acquired. 

" This principle affords ample warrant for the legislation of 
Congress concerning guano islands." 

The government of the United States permitted Great Brit- 
ain to colonize New Zealand and the Fiji Islands without 
any protest or objection. Both groups are in the Western 

The Act of Congress in regard to the guano islands was con- 
strued by the Supreme Court to be valid and in accordance 
with the law of nations as laid down by Vattel, Calvo, and 
other publicists. 


This decision was made in the case of the United States 
against Henry Jones in the Circuit Court of the United States 
for the district of Maryland, where he had been convicted of 
murder. The crime was committed on the island of Navassa 
in the Caribbean Sea, which lies to the westward of Hayti. A 
jurisdictional question in the case was raised in respect to the 
validity of the title of the United States to the island of Na- 
vassa, which had been taken possession of under the provisions 
of the Act of Congress of 1856. The Supreme Court affirmed 
the decision of the court below and decided that by the law of 
nations, new territory may be acquired by discovery and occu- 
pation as well as by cession and conquest. 

This much has been said to show that the colonization 
feature of the Monroe message is not in harmony with the Acts 
of Congress, the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the 
practices of the government in its foreign relations. 



There were no party platforms in the early history of the 
republic. The first and only national platform was that 
made by the Democratic convention at Baltimore in 1832, 
which nominated Jackson for president and Van Buren for 
vice-president. It was short and would not occupy more 
than twenty-four lines of space in the columns of a 

Presidential platforms have grown more elaborate each suc- 
ceeding four years. In the early history of the republic, the 
man was the platform. Of late years, the platform has sunk 
the man into comparative insignificance. Nothing found its 
way into any party platform on the Monroe Doctrine until 
the year 1856, when James Buchanan was nominated for 
president by the Democratic convention, at Cincinnati, Ohio. 
The resolution of that convention is as follows: 

"Resolved, — That our geographical and political position 
with reference to the other states of this continent, no less 
than the interest of our commerce and the development of 
our growing power, requires that we should hold as sacred 
the principles involved in the Monroe Doctrine; their bear- 
ing and import admit of no misconstruction; they should be 
applied with unbending rigidity." 

Nothing more was heard on this subject until the Republi- 
can convention, convened at Baltimore in 1864, renominated 
Mr. Lincoln for president. Maximilian was seated on the 
throne of Mexico at the time. The French army was in 
Mexico sustaining his authority. The Republican conven- 
tion passed the following resolution: 


" Resolved, — That we approve the position taken by the 
government that the people of the United States can never 
regard with indifference the attempt of any European power 
to overthrow by force, or to supplant by fraud, the institu- 
tions of any republican government on the Western Conti- 
nent; and that they will view with extreme jealousy, as 
menacing to the peace and independence of their own coun- 
try, the efforts of any such power to obtain new footholds 
for monarchical governments, sustained by foreign military 
force, in near proximity to the United States." 

Nothing more is heard on this subject until the year 1896, 
when the Republican national convention inserted the fol- 
lowing plank : 

" We re-assert the Monroe Doctrine in its full extent, and 
we re-affirm the right of the United States to give the doc- 
trine effect by responding to the appeal of any American 
states for friendly intervention, in case of European en- 
croachment. We have not interfered and shall not interfere 
with the existing possessions of any European power in this 
hemisphere, but these possessions must not on any pretext 
be extended. We hopefully look forward to the eventual 
withdrawal of the European powers from this hemisphere, 
and to the ultimate union of all the English-speaking part 
of the continent, by the free consent of its inhabitants." 

The Democratic party in 1896 afterward put the following 
plank in its platform : 

"The Monroe Doctrine, as originally declared and inter- 
4 preted by succeeding presidents, is a permanent part of the 
foreign policy of the United States, and must at all times 
be maintained." 

These resolutions followed immediately after the Venezue- 
lan boundary affair. 

In the year 1900 the Republican platform in its plank 
relating to the South African war, contains but one sentence 
on this subject : " We assert our steadfast adherence to the 
policy announced in the Monroe Doctrine." 


The declaration of the Democratic platform for 1900 reads 
thus : 

" The declaration in the Republican platform adopted at 
the Philadelphia Convention held in June, 1900, that the 
Republican party steadfastly adheres to the policy announced 
in the Monroe Doctrine, is manifestly insincere and decep- 
tive. This profession is contradicted by the avowed policy 
of that party in opposition to the spirit of the Monroe 
Doctrine to acquire and hold sovereignty over large areas 
of territory and large numbers of people in the Eastern 

" We insist on the strict maintenance of the Monroe Doc- 
trine in all its integrity, both in letter and spirit, as neces- 
sary to prevent the extension of European authority on this 
continent and as essential to our supremacy in American 
affairs. At the same time we declare that no American 
people shall ever be held by force in unwilling subjection 
to European authority." 

There can be no doubt but that the American people of all 
parties are in favor of the Monroe Doctrine or a general for- 
eign policy which has taken that name. The political par- 
ties, however, have reached a point where they can no longer 
pass resolutions on this subject for the simple purpose of 
misleading the people, for they now confront the nations of 
Europe and not simply the voters of the United States. The 
question now passes from a mere local political rallying cry 
into one of world-wide diplomacy, and henceforth it must 
be considered and dealt with as such. 1 

1 For the quotations from platforms prior to 1892, see Thomas Hudson. 
McKee's " National Platforms," and for platforms of a subsequent date, see the 
annual encyclopedias. 



The failure of the Panama Congress to agree upon a policy 
for the Western Hemisphere which would be binding upon 
all the republics left the United States of America to main- 
tain the Monroe Doctrine alone. 

The southern republics have been the beneficiaries of our 
peculiar system, while there is no policy of a reciprocal char- 
acter which has been adopted by any of them. 

In case the United States should become involved in war 
with one or more European powers in defending one of the 
southern republics from conquest by a European nation, 
there is nothing in the existing treaties between this gov- 
ernment and the southern republics which would make it 
incumbent on them to aid us in our defence of the republic 
that is threatened with overthrow. 

There is nothing in the declared policies of the southern 
republics of a traditional or legislative character, or other- 
wise, which would give the United States the assurance that 
any one of these republics would in any manner contribute 
material aid or support to the United States in carrying on 
a war which had for its object the preservation of any republic 
from overthrow. 

If the United States were defending itself in such a case 
from present or future calamity, its position would appear 

If its purpose were entirely altruistic, then it would be 
pursuing a course of conduct which for unselfishness would 
be almost, if not entirely, unknown among men and nations. 

When the Panama Congress was originally determined 
upon by Simon Bolivar, it was his purpose to form the 
republics which had secured their independence from Spain 
into one confederation, of which he was to be the head. 


Bolivar originally only invited the Spanish American re- 
publics to be represented at the Panama Congress, but, as 
previously mentioned, Santander, his vice-president, at the 
time acting-president of Colombia, extended the invitation 
to the United States to send delegates. Coming as it did 
so soon after the Monroe declaration, John Ouincy Adams 
and Henry Clay seized upon the opportunity to attempt to 
have a secret treaty formed among all the republics of this 
hemisphere, which would commit them, one and all, to the 
Monroe Doctrine. 

The letter of Mr. Clay to Mr. Poinsett, our minister to 
Mexico at that time, seemed to be proof positive of Mr. 
Clay's purposes referred to elsewhere, for Mr. Clay ex- 
plained that the pledge that Monroe made in his declaration 
was not a pledge to Mexico, but a pledge that this govern- 
ment made to itself. 

Adams and Clay both disclaimed any intention to form 
any alliances with the Spanish republics against European 
aggression, but the bitter opponents of those statesmen 
heard their explanations with at least apparent incredulity. 

The explanation of Mr. Clay was unique; nevertheless it 
has ruled and governed this country in its foreign policy 
from that day to this. 

When we look back over the years that have intervened 
since the Panama Congress, it appears to be almost a provi- 
dential deliverance that this country escaped making a direct 
league offensive and defensive with the Spanish American 
republics at Panama, as was contemplated by the friends of 
the measure, for, without arguing the question, it must ap- 
pear obvious that no advantages could have accrued to this 
government from such a union. The Spanish American 
republics, too, would probably have reaped no substantial 
advantages from such a compact. On the other hand, if 
the Monroe Doctrine is approved by the Spanish American 
republics as a good policy for the United States of America 
to pursue, it is much better for them to follow the same 


As Mr. Clay said of this government, each of those repub- 
lics can make pledges to itself that it will adhere to the prin- 
ciples of the Monroe Doctrine, and that it will make those 
principles its rule of conduct in respect to its foreign policy. 

For years murmurings have reached us from the continent 
of Europe in regard to the Monroe Doctrine. While it is 
true that these murmurings have mostly originated in the 
cafes and clubs of Paris, Berlin, and Vienna, yet they may 
some day originate in the courts of Europe and leave this 
government to fight the combined armies and navies of 
Europe, single-handed and alone, in the maintenance of the 
Monroe Doctrine. 

The policy of this government should be to induce the 
Spanish American republics to adopt the Monroe Doctrine 
each for itself. This could be done by each of these repub- 
lics by act or joint resolution of its congress. 

An influence could be brought to bear on these republics 
by our ministers to them under authority conferred by this 
government, and as a penalty for refusal this government 
could withdraw the protection of the Monroe Doctrine from 
such recalcitrant republics. Thus, by a little effort on the 
part of this government, the Monroe Doctrine could be made 
the doctrine of all the Spanish American republics without 
the existence of any treaty between them. This would leave 
each republic an individual responsibility to all European 
powers in respect to causes of war and resort to war, without 
making the other republics allies. They would only become 
allies when one or more of these republics had been over- 
thrown and a European monarchy erected on its ruins. 

The opposition in Congress to Mr. Clay's supposed pur- 
pose to have a treaty made at Panama which would be offen- 
sive and defensive in its character, when viewed in the light 
of to-day, seems like the very highest form of statesman- 
ship, while his explanation has furnished the key-note of 
the method whereby co-operation can be secured. 



When this republic was founded, war ships were sailing- 
vessels. The invention of steam motive-power has changed 
all this, and war vessels are now propelled principally by 

This change to steam power has created new conditions 
which were not dreamed of by the old publicists. 

"The supply of a belligerent ship by a neutral power of 
coal in quantity greater than that necessary to carry it to its 
nearest home port is now generally expressly prohibited, 
since this article may, under modern conditions, be consid- 
ered a means of aggressive action." 1 

" Such a rule was first made by Great Britain during the 
Civil War in the United States, it being provided further 
that the same vessel should not obtain more than one supply 
of coal in British waters within three months. " 2 

During the Franco-Prussian War the United States pro- 
hibited the belligerent steam-vessels from taking on more 
coal than was sufficient to carry them to the nearest European 
port of their own country, and where the vessel was rigged to 
go under either sail or steam power, she was permitted to 
take on a half supply of coal, which was needed to carry her 
to the nearest European port. 3 

Great Britain enforced the same rule during the war be- 
tween the United States and Spain. 4 

» American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
page 1165. 

2 Hall on International Law, fourth edition, page 221. 

8 See the proclamation of President U. S. Grant, dated October 8, 1870. 

4 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
page 1 165, note 3. 


Great Britain is well supplied with coaling stations in 
all quarters of the world. Not so, however, are the other 
European powers. 

This country has so expanded recently that the Pacific 
Ocean itself is practically an inland sea within the boun- 
daries of the United States. 

The other European powers except Great Britain are pro- 
foundly interested in the matter of coaling stations in the 
waters of the Pacific, the West Indies, and along the coast 
of South America. They are confronted by the precedents 
of Jefferson and Madison, and by the construction of the 
Monroe Doctrine which Grant gave in his message of May 
31, 1870, in these words: 

"The doctrine promulgated by President Monroe has been 
adhered to by all political parties, and I now deem it proper 
to assert the equally important principle that hereafter no 
territory on this continent shall be regarded as subject of 
transfer to a European power." 

The subject of coaling stations is as important to the 
United States as it is to Germany, France, Austria, or any 
other European power. 

The United States needs coaling stations in various parts 
of Europe, Africa, and Asia, and in the South Pacific and 
South Atlantic oceans and in the Indian ocean. Some 
friendly and reciprocal policy should be entered into that 
will enable the United States and all the European powers 
to purchase the fuel and supplies needed for their commerce 
or their navies in any and all quarters of the world. 

William E. Curtis, the able correspondent of "The Chicago 
Record-Herald," in a recent article has summed up the situ- 
ation of the United States with respect to the leading Euro- 
pean powers thus: 

" If we should have a war with a European power our navy 
would be seriously embarrassed by the difficulty of obtaining 
coal. A ship can carry only so much coal, and, according to 
the laws of war, a neutral nation cannot permit a belligerent 


to secure a greater supply than is necessary to carry it to the 
nearest home port. 

" Thus, if we conducted an offensive warfare and sent our 
fleets of battle-ships across the Atlantic, they must be ac- 
companied by colliers and take on coal, as opportunity offered, 
in the open sea; and the colliers would have to be protected 
by strong convoys from privateers and ships of the enemy. 
None of our battle-ships can carry enough coal to make a 
round trip across the Atlantic and back. 

"You will remember that the Oregon was compelled to 
coal twice coming around from San Francisco during the 
Spanish war, and in case of trouble in Europe, if our fleets 
should cross the Atlantic and lose their colliers, as is likely 
to occur from several causes, they would be absolutely 

"For this reason Admiral Bradford of the bureau of equip- 
ment of the Navy Department and other far-sighted men have 
been trying to persuade Congress to accept an offer made by 
the government of Liberia, through Bishop Hartzell, immedi- 
ately after the Spanish War. We were offered our choice of 
all the harbors on the Liberian coast for a coaling supply, 
and repair station, and a survey was immediately made. The 
estimates for putting the harbor in order — dredging, build- 
ing docks, coal sheds, machine-shops, quarters for the men and 
warehouses for the storage of supplies and fortifications suf- 
ficient to protect them — amounted to less than $3,000,000, 
but the matter was dropped, and it seems to be difficult to 
revive the interest of the committees of the House and 
Senate. . . . 

"The United States has no coaling stations on the conti- 
nents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Central America, or South 

" In addition to her home ports on the Atlantic Ocean, the 
English Channel, and the Mediterranean, France has sev- 
eral coaling stations on the North, East, and West coasts of 
Africa, at Madagascar, in India, China, and the South Pacific 

" Omitting the home and colonial ports of the United 
Kingdom, which would all be open to vessels of His Maj- 



esty's navy for coaling purposes during war, England has 
about seventy-five coaling stations distributed throughout 
the world. She possesses a large part of the coal producing 
territory of the world, notably the British Isles, Australia, 
Borneo, and New Zealand. In the Western Hemisphere she 
has naval stations at Victoria, British Columbia, Halifax, 
Bermuda, and Kingston, Jamaica. Besides these places she 
has coal at Toronto, Quebec, Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, 
St. Lucia, Barbadoes, Trinidad, Georgetown, British Guiana, 
and Port Stanley, Falkland Islands. In addition, coal can 
be obtained at most of the small British Islands in the West 
Indies. Coal is also kept stored on shore at Coquimbo, Chile. 
She has a line of coaling stations through the Mediterranean 
and Red Seas, viz., Gibraltar, Malta, Port Said, Suez, Perim, 
and Aden. Also all through India, and no less than ten on 
the eastern and western coasts of Africa. 

"In the China Sea the British have stations at Wei-Hai- 
Wei, Chee Foo, and Hongkong, also on the coast of Borneo, 
at Singapore, and at the various ports in Australia and New 
Zealand. Their coaling station at the Falkland Islands is of 
great importance, since it is in close proximity to the Magel- 
lan Straits. These stations are all for war purposes. She 
has contracts for coal during peace times in most of the 
great commercial centres of the world. 

"Germany has one coaling station on the East and one on 
the West coast of Africa, one at Kiao Chu, China, and five 
insular stations in the North and South Pacific. In addi- 
tion to her home ports on the Atlantic Ocean and Black Sea, 
Russia has four coaling stations on the Okhotsk and China 

In case the recent demonstrations of Great Britain, Ger- 
many, and Italy against Venezuela had culminated in a war 
between the United States and these allies, the United States 
would have been in a most deplorable condition for aggres- 
sive action upon the ocean for want of coaling and supply 
stations in the Eastern Hemisphere. 

Germany, Italy, France, and Russia, and all the other Con- 
tinental powers, and possibly Great Britain as well, might, 


and probably would, concur in such a modification of inter- 
national law as would confer the right on neutral nations to 
sell to both belligerents all the coal and other fuel, as well 
as all the commissary supplies which they might need. An 
arrangement like this would give to Germany, Russia, France, 
Italy, Austria, and other European powers such an equivalent 
for coaling stations in this hemisphere as to reconcile to the 
Monroe Doctrine those which now oppose it. 

It would be one of the greatest advantages to the United 
States to be able to purchase coal and commissary supplies 
at all times and under all circumstances of warfare in almost 
any portion of the Eastern Hemisphere. Under such arrange- 
ments as these, coaling and supply stations become a matter 
of insignificant worth or importance except in so far as such 
stations have docks for the repair of vessels. Our vessels are 
so constructed and equipped that a very large amount of the 
repairs can be made on shipboard. 

In time of war, where docks are scattered over the world, 
they would become just so many more isolated, vulnerable, 
and weak points to be defended. 

It would be a sound international policy for the United 
States to take the initiative in this matter. 

Great Britain has been favored with able diplomatists like 
George Canning, who have made her great by their wise and 
far-seeing policy. The United States, on the other hand, has 
deferred too much to Great Britain and other leading European 
powers in regard to matters of our foreign diplomacy. The 
press of Germany and sometimes of England falls into error, 
and charges that the defects in the principles of international 
law, which oppress European governments, are owing to the 
harsh operation of the Monroe Doctrine. 

The press of England, like the press of America, wields a 
free lance, and its opinions are sometimes based on the most 
superficial reasoning and the most inadequate knowledge. 
The government of Great Britain, which knows the facts, 
would not make such a charge, because it would not be 
guilty of such duplicity. 


If the king of the forest were permitted to make rules for 
the government of the smaller animals, he would probably do 
no worse for them than the mistress of the seas has done for 
the smaller maritime powers. 

The United States is totally unconscious of the fact that 
it maintains any foreign policy which embarrasses the navies 
of the world on the high seas. 

The disciples of Vattel and Bynkershoek will be surprised 
to learn that the great bulk of what passes for international 
law is of very recent origin. These combinations of two or 
more powers, which are known as "spheres of influence," are 
of such recent origin as not to be mentioned in any text-book 
of ten or fifteen years ago. It will be found, too, that much 
that passes now for international law, under the general pre- 
sumption that it is as old as the seas, is of very recent origin, 
while the most remarkable thing of all is that much that 
now passes for international law in respect to belligerent 
vessels has been arbitrarily made by Great Britain within the 
last half-century. 

Among other things, Great Britain laid down the rule dur- 
ing the American Civil War that a belligerent vessel was 
restricted to twenty-four hours in a neutral port, — a rule 
which she enforced in the war between the United States 
and Spain. 1 

The principles of international law are not settled. In 
1859 and 1870 France, when engaged in war, declared coal 
not to be contraband, and Russia has taken the same posi- 
tion. England and the United States have been disposed to 
treat coal as a contraband article, when it is destined to a 
base of naval operations. 

The Congress of Paris of 1856, to which Great Britain, 
France, Russia, Prussia, Sardinia, and Turkey were parties, 
declared that "the neutral flag covers the enemy's goods, 
with the exception of contraband of war, and they are not 
liable to capture," — a declaration which has been accepted 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol.' XVI, 
page 1165. 


by all civilized nations with the exception of the United 
States, Spain, Mexico, and Venezuela. But while the United 
States never adopted the declaration of the Congress of Paris, 
it acted on it in the Civil War and in the war with Spain. 1 

When a great maritime power lays down rules for bellig- 
erents, and these rules are followed by other nations for a 
long time, what thus becomes a custom later on takes on the 
force and quality of established international law, and the 
circumstances of its origin are overlooked or forgotten. 

The existing rules of international law are largely derived 
from the writings of eminent publicists of recognized stand- 
ing. When they agree upon a rule it is generally taken by 
the courts to be the established law. Among those pub- 
licists of standing may be named Grotius, Vattel, Bynker- 
shoek, and Puffendorf. General treaties or conventions, like 
the Congress of Vienna of 1815, the Geneva Convention of 
1864, and the convention at the Hague in 1899, have done 
much to declare and prescribe rules of international law. 

A treaty which is intended to change or fix such rules, if 
signed by practically all the civilized powers likely to be 
affected by it, is of such great authority that the rules de- 
clared thereby may be considered as thereafter a part of 
international law. 2 

The position of the United States with reference to in- 
ternational questions is unique. This government is not 
interested in the questions which embroil European govern- 
ments among themselves, and yet it sometimes stands in the 
relation of an arbiter among them, and by reason of its dis- 
interestedness and fairness, it is the instrumentality whereby 
many serious wars are avoided and the difficulties amicably 
settled. It requires no gifts of prophecy to predict that in 
the future the United States will sometimes command the 
peace of the world. 

A revision of international laws which would permit neu- 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
page 1 1 69. 

2 Ibid., page 11 26. 


trals to lease coaling stations to other nations without sur- 
rendering their sovereignty over them would probably be 
adequate for the necessities of the various maritime powers. 
A revision could be made so as to permit neutrals at all 
times without limit to sell coal or other fuel and supplies 
to belligerent vessels. If this were permitted but few coal- 
ing stations would be needed, while no surrender nor modi- 
fication of the Monroe Doctrine is required in order to effect 
these revisions of international law. 

If Great Britain and the United States had adopted the 
broad and liberal policy of France and Russia, the subject 
of coaling stations would not have been so important, and 
the opposition to the Monroe Doctrine in Europe would not 
have reached such an acute stage. 

It is a principle of international law that a neutral nation, 
though it cannot itself loan money to one of the belligerents, 
is under no obligations to restrain its subjects from doing so. 1 

As a matter of fact, in almost every war one or both parties 
rely on loans made by subjects of foreign nations. During 
the Franco-Prussian war both belligerents borrowed money 
in England. 2 

A similar rule in regard to furnishing coal or fuel for a 
ship would probably meet all the requirements of belligerents 
on the high seas. It certainly would do so if the rule were 
extended so as to permit the subjects of a neutral nation to 
sell ordinary supplies of provisions to belligerent vessels. 

Upon ethical grounds, no distinction can be drawn between 
the right of subjects of neutral powers to loan money to bel- 
ligerents to carry on the war on the one hand, and their right 
to sell fuel and food to a belligerent vessel on the other. 

If the United States is to maintain a policy of its own for 
the Western Hemisphere, everything in its power should be 
done to mitigate its asperity with respect to the nations of 
the Eastern Hemisphere. 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
page 1161. Hall on International Law, fourth edition, section 217. 

2 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
page 1 161. 



Mexico became independent of Spain in 1821, and shortly 
thereafter organized a republican form of government. Gen- 
eral Comonfort was chosen president for four years at the 
July election in 1857, under the provisions of the new con- 
stitution, and the presidential term was to begin on the first 
day of December, 1857, and continue for four years. 

General Comonfort was duly inaugurated on that day, and 
within a month he was driven from the capital, and the 
leaders of the military rebellion assigned the supreme power 
of the republic to General Zuloaga. 

The constitution provided that in the absence of the presi- 
dent his office should devolve upon the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. General Comonfort having left the country, 
Benito Juarez, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, organized 
a constitutional government at Guanayuato. Before this was 
officially known, however, at the capital, the government of 
Zuloaga had been recognized by the entire diplomatic corps, 
including the minister of the United States, as the de facto 
government of Mexico. Juarez, however, was soon estab- 
lished with his cabinet at Vera Cruz. 

The government of Zuloaga having met with earnest resist- 
ance in many parts of the republic, and at the capital, and a 
portion of the army having pronounced against it, its func- 
tions were declared terminated, and an assembly of citizens 
elected General Miramon, who represented the church party. 
President Miramon repudiated the plan under which he was 
chosen, and Zuloaga was thus restored to his position. The 
latter appointed Miramon president as his substitute, and 
Miramon assumed the duties of president for the revolu- 


tionary party. Defeat attended Miramon, and he retired to 
Spain to work up an active interest in his cause. 

The church had acquired about $300,000,000 worth of 
landed property in Mexico, which was about one half of the 
real property of the republic. On July 12, 1859, Juarez 
published a law confiscating all the church property, except 
the churches and their contents, and separated the Church 
from the State. 

During all these years of revolution and anarchy many 
outrages had been committed on the persons and property 
of foreign subjects, and especially European subjects. More- 
over, when the church property was confiscated, no provision 
was made for the payment of the principal and interest on 
that portion of the property which had been mortgaged. 
Nearly all the mortgagees resided in Europe. Besides, 
Mexico had defaulted in its payment of the interest upon 
the public debt, which was principally owed to English 
bondholders. The principal claims of Spain and France 
stood on peculiar and doubtful grounds. 

In September, 1859, the insurrectionary party made a treaty 
with Spain, which recognized the validity of certain claims 
which were denied by the Juarez government. 

The claim of France grew out of a decree by Miramon, 
dated October 29, 1859, whereby Mexican bonds amounting 
to $15,000,000 were issued. It was charged that this decree 
of Miramon was published in collusion with one Jecker, an 
embarrassed Swiss banker, as a means of mutual profit be- 
tween them. 

The sum expected to have been raised by this issue was 
$750,000. Jecker failed in May, i860, and this $15,000,000 
of bonds passed into the hands of his creditors. 

France set up a claim of $12,000,000 on account of certain 
wrongs done by Mexico up to the year 1861. Although the 
alleged wrongs had been committed for the most part, it was 
contended, on French subjects in Mexico, the claim was an 
extravagant one. The constitutional party conceded that all 
the international obligations must be assumed by the succes- 


sive governments of the State, yet it claimed that the admin- 
istration of Miramon was in no sense a government, but that 
it was only an unsuccessful revolution, and that therefore the 
obligations created by it were not binding upon the republic 
of Mexico. 

Great Britain, France, and Spain, on October 31, 1861, 
entered into a convention at London, consisting of five 

The only one which is important here is the second article, 
which reads as follows: 

"The high contracting parties engage not to seek for 
themselves, in the employment of the coercive measures 
contemplated by the present Convention, any acquisition of 
territory, nor any special advantage, and not to exercise 
in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature 
to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to 
constitute freely the form of its government." 1 

The mode of redress which the three powers had ostensibly 
agreed upon was to seize Vera Cruz, Tampico, and other 
Mexican ports of entry on the Gulf of Mexico, and seques- 
trate the custom revenues at the Mexican ports. All pur- 
poses of conquest or of territorial acquisition were explicitly 
disclaimed and reiterated for a long period after the expedi- 
tion set out. 

In December, 1861, the allied armies of Spain, Great 
Britain, and France took possession of Vera Cruz, for the 
alleged purpose of protecting their citizens who were bond- 
holders and mortgagees of the church property which had 
been confiscated by the Mexican government. 

Great Britain and Spain soon adjusted their affairs and left 
Mexico. The French, who were really acting in concert with 
a powerful organization in Mexico, remained and took pos- 
session of the city of Mexico, and put Maximilian on the 
throne as emperor. 

Maximilian to all outward appearances was firmly seated 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, page 467. 


on the throne of Mexico by the close of the year 1864, except 
that guerilla bands roamed everywhere over the country. No 
suggestion was made up to this time by the government of 
the United States that we had a foreign policy that forbade 
the overthrow of a sister republic, and which would not per- 
mit a European to reign as emperor. 

It is true, Mr. Seward, our Secretary of State, refused to 
acknowledge the Maximilian government, but he explained 
his refusal by pointing out that the new government had not 
yet obtained full control of Mexico, as the Juarez government 
still held a footing on Mexican soil and had its regularly 
accredited agents in this country. Moreover, on April 4, 

1864, the House of Representatives, by unanimous vote, 
passed a resolution declaring the opposition of that body to 
a recognition of a monarchy in Mexico. 

On April 7 Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Dayton, our minister 
to France, explaining that any action of the House was un- 
constitutional, and that it was a decision which did not 
belong to the House, nor to Congress, but to the president. 
He further stated that the president directed him to say that 
he did not at present contemplate any change of policy from 
that which this government had hitherto pursued. 

Our civil war having ended, Mr. Seward, on September 6, 

1865, wrote a letter to Mr. Bigelow, then minister to France, 
mildly suggesting dissatisfaction with the conduct of France 
in Mexico. 

Mr. Seward in his letter to Mr. Bigelow of December 16, 
1865, says: 

First : That the United States earnestly desire to cultivate 
sincere friendship with France. 

Second: That this policy would be brought into imminent 
jeopardy unless France could deem it consistent with her 
interest and honor to desist from the prosecution of armed 
intervention in Mexico. He closes this letter by saying 
that "the United States will not recognize Maximilian, even 
if the French troops should be withdrawn from Mexico." 1 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1865, page 321. 


This diplomatic correspondence was kept up for nearly two 

In the early part of 1864 a deputation of Mexicans which 
had in the preceding year tendered the imperial crown to 
Maximilian returned to Europe on a similar errand. On 
April 10 he received the deputation at his palace of Mira- 
mar. Giuterrez de Estrada addressed the Duke on behalf 
of the deputation, as he had done a year previously. Maxi- 
milian had declined the first offer of the crown, and required 
that he should be elected to the throne by the votes of the 
people of Mexico, and that he should have certain guarantees 
as well as the approval of his brother, the Emperor of Aus- 
tria. This was all in accordance with the French programme. 
A farce of an election took place in some sections, and the 
result was declared to be in favor of Maximilian as emperor 
by "an immense majority." 

Estrada in his address not only stated this fact, but as- 
serted that the notables of Mexico, the municipal authorities, 
and the popular corporations were unanimously for him. To 
this flattering speech, concerning the action of a great people 
with respect to a man they had never seen and never heard of 
before, Maximilian replied at some length, in part as follows: 
"I may of good right consider myself the legitimate elect 
of the Mexican people; the first condition in my reply of 
October 3 is therefore fulfilled. The guarantees which the 
future empire require are now secured, thanks to the Emperor 
of the French. The august head of my family, upon his part, 
has given his consent to my taking possession of the throne 
offered me. Mexico has placed her confidence in a descend- 
ant of the House of Hapsburg, which three centuries ago 
planted a Christian monarchy upon her soil. This confi- 
dence touches me, and I shall not betray it." 1 

At the end of this interview the new sovereign was 
greeted by shouts of "God save the Emperor Maximilian 
I!" and by salvos of artillery from the castle and the city 
of Trieste. 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1864, page 519. 


The deputation knelt and kissed the hand of the emperor, 
and immediately afterward the transaction was put into the 
form of a proces-verbal and signed by the parties. Thus 
was an emperor made and an empire formed on the ruins of 
a republic. 

The emperor arrived at Vera Cruz May 28, 1864, and the 
imperial entry into the capital, the city of Mexico, took 
place on June 12 following. This entry was attended with 
a degree of pomp and circumstance such as has never before 
nor since been witnessed in Mexico. 

The government of Maximilian was never in any manner 
recognized by the United States. The ambassadors and 
consuls of the empire were treated simply as private per- 
sons, and were not permitted to perform official acts. The 
ministers, consuls, and other officials of the Juarez govern- 
ment were uniformly recognized as the duly accredited offi- 
cials of the Mexican government. While the diplomatic 
correspondence between Mr. Seward and the French govern- 
ment was being carried on, the United States sent a large 
army under Sheridan into Texas, which was located on the 
borders of Mexico. The ostensible object of this large force 
was to preserve neutrality between this government and the 
Mexican authorities, and to maintain peace and quietude in 
Texas. One of the real objects was that in case the pending 
negotiations with France should fail, this government would 
have a large force on the borders of Mexico, which could be 
moved with great celerity across the line, join with the forces 
of Juarez, and crush the French and the adherents of Maxi- 
milian by a sudden and decisive blow. 

This condition of things filled the Liberal party of Mexico 
with fresh inspiration, and the hearts of the Imperial party 
with dismay. The diplomatic correspondence between Mr. 
Seward and the French government resulted in an agreement 
that the French troops should evacuate Mexico in three de- 
tachments, respectively in November, 1866, March, 1867, and 
November, 1867. 

The French government, instead of following this plan, 


began evacuating in January, 1S67, and by the following 
February 5 the French had left Mexico. 

By March 1, 1867, Maximilian was left at the head of the 
Mexican native troops and a small force of Austrian auxil- 
iaries, with all the interior of -the country, save a few 
isolated points, in the hands of the Liberals. It was a 
noteworthy fact in connection with the agreement between 
the United States and France that this government would 
not intervene in the affairs of Mexico after the evacuation 
by the French troops. 

Mr. Bigelow, our minister to France, had proposed on his 
own responsibility to have the United States recognize the 
empire of Maximilian after the departure of the French, but 
the president disapproved of this tender of recognition. The 
agreement of non-intervention was in violation of the Monroe 
Doctrine. It was an agreement which was known at the time 
to possess no practical value because the empire of Maxi- 
milian was in a state of collapse, long prior to the French 
evacuation. The Empress Carlotta went to Europe to seek 
aid in strengthening existing alliances, and for the purpose 
of making new ones, which would come to the rescue and 
sustain the tottering empire of Maximilian in Mexico. She 
had an interview with the French emperor. On August 9, 
1866, in answer to the inquiries of the American minister 
concerning certain rumors, the French Minister of Foreign 
Affairs replied : " We have received the empress with cor- 
diality and courtesy, but the plan heretofore determined upon 
by the emperor will be executed in the way announced." 1 
From Paris the empress went to Rome and had an inter- 
view with the Pope, and failed entirely in the object of her 
mission. She made a second visit to the Vatican, and on 
this occasion exhibited undoubted symptoms of impaired 
intellect, which soon developed into confirmed insanity. In 
this condition she was taken back to her palace of Miramar. 
The sad story of the continued lunacy of this charming princess 
and empress has called forth the sympathy of all mankind. 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1866, page 501. 


The history of Maximilian and the empire after the evacua- 
tion of Mexico by the French was short and bloody, and need 
not be recited in detail. 

On May 15, 1867, the Liberal forces entered Queretaro 
and took prisoner the entire Imperialist forces, including 
the Emperor Maximilian and his leading generals Miramon 
and Mejia. 

The emperor had a force of eight thousand men, while the 
besieging force numbered eighteen thousand. The besiegers 
were aided in this capture by the treachery of General Lopez, 
an officer on Maximilian's staff. He was the bosom friend 
of Maximilian, and is said to have received $48,000 as the 
reward of his treachery. Maximilian, Miramon, and Mejia 
were tried by court-martial and sentenced to be shot on 
June 16, 1867. 

When intelligence reached Maximilian's brother, the Em- 
peror of Austria, that the former was besieged in the town 
of Queretaro, that monarch appealed through his minister at 
Washington to the United States government to interfere in 
behalf of the unfortunate prince. Secretary Seward im- 
mediately directed Mr. Campbell, our minister to Mexico, 
to communicate to Juarez "the desire of this government 
that, in case of capture the prince and his supporters may 
receive the humane treatment awarded by civilized nations 
to prisoners of war." 1 

Baron Magnas, the Prussian minister in Mexico, gave 
Juarez the assurance of his own sovereign and "all the 
crowned heads of Europe, united by ties of blood to the 
prince prisoner, that they would give all security that none 
of the prisoners shall again tread Mexican soil." 2 All these 
importunities were met with the same unrelenting firmness, 
and on June 19, after a respite of three days, Maximilian was 
shot by a platoon of Mexican soldiers, Miramon and Mejia 
were reduced from their rank as Mexican officers, stripped of 
all insignia of honor, and shot in the back as traitors to their 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1867, pages 498, 499. 2 Ibid., page 500. 


When Maximilian found that his French support was to be 
withdrawn, and that his empire was in a state of collapse, he 
could have abdicated and returned to Austria. He preferred, 
however, to remain and share the fate of the party of Mexi- 
cans who placed him on the throne. 

Benito Juarez, president of the Republic of Mexico, was 
a full-blooded Indian, born and reared in poverty, who had 
been educated by a charitable friar, and who dispensed jus- 
tice and mercy in accordance with the instincts of his race. 

The difference between the instincts of the Indian and the 
culture of the white man was seen in the treatment of these 
prisoners. If Juarez had been a white man he would have 
sent Maximilian home to Austria, where the wit, culture, 
beauty, and nobility of that empire would have visited his 
castle at Miramar as formerly, with music and song, in gon- 
dolas from Trieste; and where, as in the past, the merry 
laugh of childhood would have been again heard among the 
trees and winding avenues. 

He should have pardoned Miramon and Mejia and exiled 
them, or permitted them to have lived among their country- 
men whom they had betrayed, as objects of scorn and detes- 
tation. As it was, however, he added a long catalogue of 
executions to that of these three distinguished personages, 
and made the history of the empire of Maximilian a chapter 
of horrors. 

Juarez was the greatest statesman that Mexico had pro- 
duced up to his time. He was an ardent patriot, and honest 
as well, but there is no excuse for his want of consideration 
and kindness in dealing with his fallen foes. 

Sentiment and respect for conditions are the jewels of a 
truly great and noble mind. The iconoclast is a brute, and 
his creed is the essence of brutality. 



THE Dutch formed a colony on the Atlantic coast of South 
America, east of the Essequibo River, during their war for 
independence; and at the treaty of Munster, in 1648, this was 
recognized as a colony of Holland. 

The Spanish colonies, of which Venezuela was a part, re- 
volted in 1 8 10, and in 1845 the independence of Venezuela, 
which had seceded from the United States of Colombia in 
1830, was recognized by Spain. 

Upon the organization of the Republic of Venezuela the 
Essequibo River was recognized in the constitution and laws 
of Venezuela as the boundary line. Spain had considered the 
Essequibo River the boundary, and she reaffirmed this view in 
her treaty with Venezuela in 1845, and there can be but little 
doubt that this river was the recognized line of division be- 
tween the Dutch and Spanish possessions. 

In 1 8 14, Holland ceded to Great Britain the territories of 
Demarara, Essequibo, and Berbice. Great Britain acquired 
the rights of Holland, and Venezuela acquired the rights of 
Spain. The Dutch had taken some additional territory near 
the coast, west of the Essequibo River, but they did not go 
beyond the Parana and Moroco rivers. 

In 1836, Great Britain sought to establish a lighthouse at 
Punta Barima, at the mouth of the Orinoco River. Vene- 
zuelan jurisdiction had been previously acknowledged by the 
British authorities at Demarara over that portion of the terri- 
tory west of the Moroco River. 

The claim of Great Britain that her territory extended as 
far west as Punta Barima on the Orinoco was first made in 
1841, by an English engineer named Schomburhk, who sur- 
veyed the line and planted posts to mark it far west of the 


Essequibo River, and not far distant from the Orinoco and 
touching its mouth at Punta Barima. Lord Aberdeen, in pur- 
suance of the protests of Venezuela, ordered Schomburhk's 
posts removed, and explained that they were not intended to 
indicate possession. 

In 1844, negotiations were opened; Venezuela proposed the 
Essequibo River and Lord Aberdeen proposed the Moroco 
River west of the Essequibo, and he asserted that Great Britain 
was willing to cede all the territory between the Moroco and 
Amacuro rivers, and that she claimed none of this territory. 

Venezuela declined Lord Aberdeen's proposition, but when 
negotiations were resumed in 1876, she accepted it; then Lord 
Granville declined to agree to it, and proposed a line of his 
own which embraced a large tract of territory on the coast, 
but was identical with Lord Aberdeen's line in the interior. 
Venezuela protested against Lord Granville's line, and invoked 
the aid of the United States in the settlement of the question. 
Later on, a treaty with an arbitration clause in it was proposed 
by Lord Salisbury, when a change occurred in the ministry. 

In 1886, negotiations were resumed with Lord Rosebery 
as successor to Salisbury, who proposed a new line not so far 
west as Lord Granville's, but made a demand for the free navi- 
gation of the Orinoco, which was rejected by Venezuela. 

Great Britain took possession of the Yuruari territory far 
into the interior, to which she had no shadow of a claim, and 
which the Dutch had never occupied. This was found to be a 
rich mining territory. 

Venezuela severed diplomatic relations with Great Britain. 
In December, 1889, the latter took possession of the main 
mouth of the Orinoco River, and declared Barima a British 
port. In 1890, Lord Salisbury announced that Great Britain 
would not arbitrate in regard to anything east of the Schom- 
burhk line, and set up a new claim to territory beyond it. 

On February 17, 1888, Mr. Bayard, then Secretary of State, 
and who had always been considered a great friend of England, 
wrote to Mr. Phelps, the American minister in London, a 
letter in which he laid bare in some degree the invalidity of the 



claims of Great Britain, and suggested that our good disposi- 
tion to aid in a settlement might not only be defeated, but be 
obliged to give place to a feeling of grave concern. 

On July 20, 1895, Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, sent a letter 
to our ambassador at London, in which he asserted that dis- 
tinctive American policy which was announced by Monroe. 

Lord Salisbury did not answer Mr. Olney's letter until the 
points raised had been carefully considered by the law officers 
of the Crown. 

In two notes, both dated November 26, 1895, ne stated his 
belief that the Monroe Doctrine had never before been ad- 
vanced in a written communication addressed to another 
government, and that it had undergone a notable develop- 
ment since 1823. 

He referred to the Holy Alliance as a system which Monroe 
was combating, and maintained that he was supported in his 
position by his own countrymen, adding, " but the dangers 
apprehended by President Monroe have no relation to the 
state of things in which we live at the present day. Great 
Britain is imposing no system upon Venezuela, but the British 
Empire and the Republic of Venezuela are neighbors, having 
a controversy about boundaries, with which the United States 
have no apparent concern." * 

He disclaimed any acceptance of the Monroe Doctrine, and 
said it was a novel principle, forming no part of international 
law, having never been recognized by the government of any 
other country. 

It has been stated that Lord Salisbury further said that " no 
statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however powerful, 
are competent to insert into the code of international law a 
novel principle which has never been recognized by the gov- 
ernment of any other country." 

Upon the refusal of Great Britain to arbitrate the question 
of the Venezuelan boundary line, Cleveland, in his message of 
December 17, 1895, laid before Congress the fact of his failure 
to induce Great Britain to arbitrate the boundary question, 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1895, pages 748, 749. 


reasserted the Monroe Doctrine with emphasis, and recom- 
mended that Congress should authorize the appointment of 
commissioners to report on the true boundary line. Congress 
thereupon unanimously authorized the appointment of com- 
missioners, and the president appointed Justice David J. 
Brewer and four others as a commission to report on the true 
boundary line, which, however, they never did. This appoint- 
ment led to further diplomatic correspondence between the 
United States, Great Britain, and Venezuela, and resulted in 
the appointment of a joint commission by Great Britain and 
Venezuela, which convened and settled the disputed boundary 

Venezuela selected Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer, 
both members of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Great Britain appointed Lord Chief Justice Russell and Justice 

Professor Martens of Russia, a learned commentator on 
international law, acted as presiding officer and umpire for 
this commission of arbitration, which met at Paris and, after 
hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel, announced 
its decision on October 3, 1899. It gave back to Venezuela 
the rich mining territory of Yuruari, and extended the British 
coast line very far to the west, but not so far west as Punta 
Barima. British possession does not now extend so far west 
as the mouth of the Orinoco River. 

The commission in making up its award considered not 
only the early history of the boundaries, but also the more 
recent facts of colonization and development. It was unani- 
mous in its decision. 

This coercion of Great Britain into an arbitration of the 
boundary line was rather a novel application of the Monroe 
Doctrine, and startled the nations of Europe into contemplat- 
ing not only the sources of authority for such action, but 
into considering what might be its future possibilities and 

Lord Salisbury in his correspondence took the same view 
that many American statesmen did, that the Monroe Doctrine 


could have no application except as against the Holy Alliance, 
or other alliances of European powers of a similar character. 

Mr. Seward had not mentioned the Monroe Doctrine in his 
correspondence with France in regard to the empire of Maxi- 
milian in Mexico, and European nations were not formally- 
made acquainted with the fact that we had a foreign policy 
known as the Monroe Doctrine. 



THE comments of the German press at the outbreak of the 
war with Spain, as quoted in American journals, indicated 
that the government as well as the people of Germany were 
laboring under the misapprehension that the war grew out of 
the application of the Monroe Doctrine to Spanish affairs in 
the Island of Cuba. 

These press comments further tended to show that this 
misapprehension was more or less shared in by nearly all 
the European governments except Great Britain. They gave 
forth the impression that there was serious danger of an alliance 
of a number of the leading powers of Europe with Spain 
against the United States, with a view of breaking down the 
Monroe Doctrine. This apprehension of a war with Europe 
happily passed away. 

Later on, in May, 1900, Mr. Lodge of Massachusetts, speak- 
ing in the Senate of the United States in favor of more ships 
for the navy, said : 

" I am by no means sure that some European nation (per- 
haps one whose navy is now receiving rapid increase) may 
not test the Monroe Doctrine, and we may be called upon to 
protect the doctrine in Brazil or in some other South American 
country. I am not conjuring up fancies, but I believe the 
way to preserve peace is to provide such a navy as no power 
in the world would care to encounter." 

The distinguished senator palpably referred to Germany, 
for, prior to this note of warning from him, Admiral Dewey 
had become embroiled in a controversy with the German naval 
commander at Manila, which well-nigh brought on a war. 

Since that date events have followed each other with con- 
siderable rapidity, all tending to show that Germany is seeking 


to bring on a war with this country, while the German press 
has been outspoken and violent in its denunciations of the 
United States. This conduct of Germany will not be dwelt 
upon here, as the subject now under discussion is Germany 
and Brazil. 

German colonization of southern Brazil is going on at a 
rapid rate. There are now about three hundred thousand 
Germans, or persons classed as Germans, in Brazil. At least 
two hundred and thirty thousand of them are in the States of 
Parana, Santa Catharina, and Rio Grand Do Sul. A large 
portion of the remaining seventy thousand are located in the 
States of San Paulo and Minas-Geraes. These five States all 
lie in one body and together constitute the southern portion 
of Brazil. 

There are apprehensions that the German government has 
some colonization policy which it is seeking to work out in 
southern Brazil. 

Dom Pedro II in 1841 was crowned Emperor of Brazil, 
which is about as large as the United States, exclusive of the 
recent insular accessions from Spain. He was a very enter- 
prising ruler and early in his reign the Brazilian government 
made large donations of lands to immigrants upon condition 
that one hundred thousand of them should settle on the 
donated lands before the year 1862. 

Such arrangements were made as gave these European 
immigrants free transportation from Europe to Brazil. The 
great bulk of this immigration was German, and while the 
tide of immigration thus originated has met with checks and 
drawbacks, it has never entirely ceased to flow from Germany. 

New postal arrangements and new commercial relations have 
sprung up between Germany and Brazil, and the relations 
between Germany and these Brazilian colonies are quite in- 
timate. Germany can do almost anything for the Germans of 
Brazil without violating the foreign policy of the United States, 
except that of overthrowing the republic and erecting a mon- 
archy on its ruins. 

In case of civil war, Germany could actively co-operate 


with either side in the conflict. If war should occur between 
the Germans of Brazil and the other race elements, Germany 
presumably would be on the side of the former, and could so 
far aid the Germans of Brazil as to place the entire political 
power of the republic in their hands. All this and much 
more could be done without violating the Monroe Doctrine. 

The five States of Brazil which we have referred to as beine 
colonized by Germans, together are two and one-third times 
the size of Texas, over ten times the size of New York State 
and about eight and one-half times the size of New England. 

The Republic of Brazil doubtless has times of sore trial not 
far ahead, for although the change from an empire to a re- 
public in the year 1889 was a bloodless one, its baptism of 
blood has yet to come. Never did a monarchy give way to a 
republic under such remarkable conditions as occurred in 
Brazil. The revolution was brought about by the debating 
societies which were scattered in great profusion over the 
empire, and men were appointed and measures were adopted 
to work out the details. 

The emperor, Dom Pedro II, was granted a pension and 
sent to Portugal where he could spend the remainder of his 
days in peace and quietude among his kins-people. 

We can only wait to see what will be the fate of a republic 
which has no sacred memories of heroism and self-sacrifice at 
its birth; a republic which has no Bunker Hill, no Valley 
Forge, no Yorktown. 

The German government originally had nothing to do with 
the colonization of Brazil. It was a Brazilian policy in its 
inception exclusively. 

Emperor William of Germany was born and baptized in 
this state of affairs, and his able and superb statesmanship is 
simply directed to considering and doing those things which 
appear to him to be the best for Germany and the German 

This colonization of Brazil by Germans, like all forms of 
emigration, met with the stern opposition of Bismarck. Until 
the year 1896, indeed, emigration to Brazil met with far 


greater opposition from the German government than emigra- 
tion to the United States. 

When Dora Pedro's magnificent offer of lands to European 
settlers was published, the whole scheme thereupon took the 
form of a commercial enterprise, in which the Hanse cities of 
Germany became financially and commercially interested. 
The Confederacy of the Hanse cities for centuries commanded 
the respect and defied the power of kings. While their league 
has long since been broken, yet in a financial and commercial 
way, some of their old-time power is still felt. It enabled 
Dom Pedro to carry out his plans over the protests and opposi- 
tion of the German government. 

The natural increase of the German population in southern 
Brazil is marvellous. As a rule they rear from ten to fifteen 
children in each family. Blumenau, a colony which was 
settled by the Germans over fifty years ago, more than doubles 
itself every ten years. Southern Brazil is now called " Greater 
Germany," and the Germans exercise there a commercial and 
financial supremacy. 

The German immigrants retain their allegiance to Germany 
and the customs of the fatherland, and those born in Brazil, 
though citizens of Brazil by law, consider Germany as their 
fatherland, celebrate all the German national festivals and 
anniversaries, and, as a general rule, speak the German language. 

The native Brazilians are a heterogeneous population of 
mixed races, with but little, if any, of the sentiments of patriot- 
ism. They look upon the foreigners who migrate there as 
beings far superior to themselves, and indeed view them with 
inspirations of awe somewhat akin to those which the native 
Mexicans felt for Cortez when they heard his cannon thunder- 
ing over their hills and through their valleys. 

As a result of this condition of things the native population 
of Brazil possesses no power of assimilation and absorption of 
the immigrants who come to its shores. 

On the other hand, the Germans have the power of assimi- 
lation and absorption, which goes on slowly, but nevertheless 
goes on as irresistibly as any other of the processes affecting 


mankind which have been irrevocably settled by the registered 
decrees of fate. As the ages roll away and as these conditions 
obtain their fuller development, it may be found that German 
colonization of " Greater Germany" is the "stone cut without 
hands " which afterwards became a great mountain and filled 
the whole earth. 

These conditions have quietly wrought a great change in 
German hopes and aspirations. Their numerous exploring 
expeditions have traversed the length and breadth of southern 
Brazil, but the result of their researches has never been pro- 
claimed to the world to any great extent. 

Dr. Leyser, a German traveller, in his book recently pub- 
lished concerning Santa Catharina, says : 

" Nowhere are our colonies, those loyal offshoots from the 
mother root, so promising as here. To-day in these provinces, 
over thirty per cent of the inhabitants are Germans, or of 
German descent, and the ratio of their natural increase far 
exceeds that of the Portuguese. Surely to us belongs this part 
of the world, and the key to it all is Santa Catharina, stretch- 
ing from the harbor of San Francisco far into the interior 
with its hitherto undeveloped, hardly suspected wealth. Here 
indeed, in southern Brazil, is a rich and healthy land, where 
the German emigrant may retain his nationality, where for all 
that is comprised in the word ' Germanismus,' a glorious 
future smiles." 1 

Dr. Herman Meyer, in a recent number of the " Kolonial 
Zeitschrift " writes : " The German spirit is ineradicably 
grounded in the hearts of these colonists, and it will undoubt- 
edly bear fruit, perhaps a rich harvest, which will not only 
prove a blessing to the colonies, but to the Fatherland." 2 

The condition of things here mentioned has not escaped 
the attention of the Brazilians. It has become to them a 
source of continual and accumulating anxiety, for they see 
what appears to them to be a " handwriting on the wall " 
which foretells the destruction of their nationality. 

1 North American Review, Vol. CLXXVI, page 64. 

2 Ibid., page 65. 


Dr. Murtinho of Brazil, one of the most eminent publicists 
in South America, in a recent speech admits that the native- 
born population is incapable of assimilating the large number 
of European emigrants who are pouring into Brazil, and he 
has sounded a note of alarm which has created a profound 
sensation in southern Brazil. 

The processes of German assimilation in the five States of 
southern Brazil, or other causes, may at some time result in 
the organization of a separate government for them. If a 
majority of the people of the republic of Brazil, or of " Greater 
Germany," as the case may be, should voluntarily decide that 
they would become a part of the Empire of Germany, there 
would be nothing in the Monroe Doctrine to prevent it. 

On October 23, 1863, Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Dayton, our 
minister to France, as follows : 

" Happily the French government has not been left unin- 
formed, that in the opinion of the United States the permanent 
establishment of a foreign and monarchical government in 
Mexico will be found neither easy nor desirable. 

" You will inform M. Drouyn de l'Huys, that this opinion 
remains unchanged. On the other hand, the United States 
cannot anticipate the action of the people of Mexico, nor 
have they the least purpose nor desire to interfere with their 
proceedings, or control or interfere with their free choice, or 
disturb them in the enjoyment of whatever institutions of 
government they may in the exercise of an absolute freedom 
establish. . . . 

"The United States consistently with their principles can do 
no otherwise than leave the destinies of Mexico in the keeping 
of her own people, and recognize their sovereignty and inde- 
pendence in whatever form they themselves shall choose that 
this sovereignty and independence shall be manifested." x 

The subsequent election of Maximilian by the Mexican 
people to the office of Emperor of Mexico was reported to 
him by the Mexican deputation which tendered him the 

1 Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, pages 644, 645. 


crown, as having been carried " by an immense majority of 
the country, and the unanimous acclamation of the notables 
of Mexico." It was known in the United States that this 
election was a fraud and a farce, and it was so acted upon by 
the government. 

According to Mr. Seward, the greatest expounder of our 
foreign policy, Brazil, like Mexico, could by the free choice 
of her people, adopt any form of government which they 
might choose, or they might become the subjects of any 
power, whether American or European. 

It has been pointed out elsewhere that since the Monroe 
declaration New Zealand and the Fiji Islands have been colo- 
nized by Great Britain, and that since that time Great Britain 
has changed from a tenant of Spain to a position of sovereign 
in British Honduras. 

While there is no statute of limitations which bars the right 
of the government, yet no American statesman would now 
seek to question the right and title of Great Britain in any one 
of these three acquisitions. The two insular acquisitions were 
so distant from the United States that the subject never at- 
tracted public attention, while in the case of Honduras, the 
whole matter went by default, and no question has ever been 
raised concerning Great Britain's right to that country, and it 
has been implied that her title is good, and not an invasion of 
our foreign policy. 

Southern Brazil is a remote part of this hemisphere, and it 
would be no violation of precedent to accord to Germany any 
rights there which she might see fit to assert under the mild 
and gentle forms of friendly diplomacy. 

The first hundred years of the republic of the United States 
was made illustrious by the services of its constructive states- 
men, such as Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Marshall, 
and later on by the prowess and patriotism of its citizen 

If the republic is to be carried through the second hundred 
years as successfully and as grandly as through the first, it will 
depend largely on its tactfulness and skill in the world-wide 


field of diplomacy, and upon the strength and effectiveness of 
its navy. 

This " stone cut without hands " from the quarries on the 
Rhine may roll over the Latin-American republics and crush 
them. These republics may have been the image which 
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about, — its head of gold, breast and 
arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, representing the three 
co-ordinate branches of government; its legs of iron, and feet 
part of iron and part of clay, representing the people on which 
their governments rest, made up of whites, Indians, and negroes, 
the last two furnishing the clay for the feet. Daniel, in inter- 
preting this dream, evidently told Nebuchadnezzar only that 
portion which was needful for him to know, in order to quiet 
his nervousness, leaving time itself to reveal the balance to 
men of ordinary understanding. It was a matter of no concern 
to him how history might repeat itself in the rise and fall of 
other empires. 

Whenever the various causes of agitation between the United 
States and Germany have taken the form of diplomatic cor- 
respondence, Germany has shown a friendly regard and con- 
sideration for the former which is not in keeping with the 
denunciations of the German press. The present Emperor 
of Germany has been undertaking to inform himself concern- 
ing the nature and extent of our foreign policy, rather than to 
make any direct assault upon it. 



The United States and Denmark had entered into an agree- 
ment whereby the latter conveyed to the United States the 
Danish West Indian Islands for the consideration of three 
millions of dollars. Denmark seemed to be more than glad 
to rid herself of these islands, which she regarded as an 
incumbrance, while the islands themselves were more than 
pleased with the change and voted for it. 

All that was necessary to be done to make the transaction 
complete was to have the treaty of cession ratified by the 
Landsthing of Denmark. No doubt seemed to exist in the 
mind of any one in this country that the Landsthing would 
ratify what the government had done in ceding the islands 
to the United States. The treaty came up for ratification 
in that body in October, 1902, and was rejected by a majority 
of one vote. This action of the Landsthing came as a sur- 
prise to the governments and people, both of Denmark and 
of the United States. 

Germany has been for years devising ways and means to 
obtain coaling stations and harbors for her vessels in the 
Caribbean Sea. A constant and all-absorbing topic of in- 
terest and speculation with her has been as to the best 
methods of accomplishing that object. She has investi- 
gated the nature of our foreign policy, and finds that as 
matters stand at present she could not peaceably acquire 
any islands or territory in this hemisphere. The eyes of 
Germany have been fixed upon the Danish West Indian 
Islands as being the most feasible investment for her if the 
conditions should so change as to enable her to acquire 
them peaceably. 


Under these circumstances, and inspired by these hopes, 
it is believed in America that Germany exerted her influence 
upon the Landsthing, and thereby defeated the treaty of ces- 
sion of the islands by Denmark to the United States. The 
German press was decided in its opposition to this cession. 

German expectations had three foundations to rest upon : 

First: The abrogation of the Monroe Doctrine as the result 
of a war between the United States and certain European 

Second: The voluntary abandonment of "this traditional 
foreign policy" by the United States, or the negligent as- 
sertion of it by some weak, vacillating, and pusillanimous 

Third: The Franco-Prussian war and the consolidation of 
the German Empire which followed, and which gave a new 
impulse to German unity and aggressiveness. 

From the time of Napoleon to that of the old Emperor 
Wilhelm, Germans had but little to do except emigrate and 
scatter and lose their identity among the nations of the 
western world. It would not be beyond the bounds of pos- 
sibility for United Germany some day to extend her Euro- 
pean borders coincident with, or even beyond, the former 
empire of Charlemagne. 

Denmark, geographically, rests upon the face of Germany 
like the tip end of the tusk upon the nose of a rhinoceros. 
While the hatred of the Danes by the Germans is a factor to 
be considered, yet it would not be sufficient to prevent the 
absorption and consolidation of Denmark with the German 

The duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were wrested from 
Denmark by the peace treaty of Vienna in October, 1864. 
These two duchies, which formed no inconsiderable portion 
of the little kingdom of Denmark, now constitute a part of 
the Empire of Germany. It is within the bounds of proba- 
bility that what remains of Denmark will some day be 
absorbed by Germany. These facts, coupled with the needs 
of Germany's large and increasing navy, furnish a key to 


Germany's opposition to the cession of the Danish West 
Indies to the United States. 

In case Denmark and her insular possessions should be- 
come a part of Germany, a very complicated question would 
arise concerning the application of the Monroe Doctrine to 
the transfer, for the doctrine as now expounded would pro- 
hibit Denmark from ceding the islands to Germany; but 
they would pass incidentally to the latter, not by cession 
but by the absorption of Denmark itself. 

This would present the question in a form which has never 
as yet been considered. If Denmark should voluntarily at- 
tach herself to Germany, and if the islands by a free and fair 
vote should decide to follow the lead of Denmark into the 
German Empire, then the case would come within the rule, 
as stated by the Lincoln administration to France, when it 
informed France that the United States would not oppose 
any form of government for Mexico which was decided upon 
by the free and voluntary choice of the people of Mexico. 

The United States would, no doubt, construe the Monroe 
Doctrine as forbidding any form of transfer of any islands or 
territory in this hemisphere to a European power, unless it 
took place by the free choice of the people. The United 
States would be the sole judge of the regularity and fairness 
of the election, as it was in the case when Maximilian was 
unanimously elected Emperor of Mexico by the vote of the 
Mexican people. 

Our foreign policy is an unwritten law, and the United 
States will never be embarrassed by any technical rules in 
its construction and elucidation. 



A CANAL across the Isthmus became a subject of interest and 
agitation soon after the discovery of America. Cortez had 
a survey made for that purpose about the time of his conquest 
of Mexico. Philip II, King of Spain, employed two Flemish 
engineers to survey a route near where the present Panama 
canal route is located. Owing to the insuperable difficulties 
and the great expense, and to political reasons as well, after 
hearing the report of the engineers, he ordered that no one 
should revive the subject or make any propositions concern- 
ing it, under penalty of death. 

The idea of constructing a canal across the Isthmus was 
entertained by the people of the United States at a very early 
date. On March 3, 1835, the Senate adopted a resolution 
requesting the president to consider the expediency of open- 
ing negotiations with Central America, New Granada, and 
other nations with reference to the construction of a ship 
canal across the Isthmus. 

Polk, in his message of February 10, 1847, transmitting 
the treaty of 1846 with New Granada to the Senate, says 
that the interest on the part of the government of the United 
States for a canal across the Isthmus was awakened when the 
Spanish-American republics achieved their independence of 

Ferdinand de Lesseps, who had built the Suez Canal, or- 
ganized a French company in 1881. His plan was to dig a 
canal seventy-two feet wide at the bottom, and twenty-eight 
feet deep below the sea level, from ocean to ocean, a distance 
of forty-six miles. 

He began operations on the canal in the fall of 1881, and 
had raised and expended, up to June 30, 1886, 772,545,412 


francs in its construction. The expenditures far exceeded 
the estimates, and French pride having become enlisted in 
the enterprise, the French government authorized the issu- 
ance of lottery bonds amounting to 600,000,000 francs, which 
it did not guarantee, but on which it guaranteed certain prizes 
to the winners. The bonds were known as the Canal Lottery 
Bonds, and were drawn like any other prizes in a lottery. 
Only a part of these bonds were sold. 

The Canal Company suspended operations in March, 1889, 
in a hopelessly insolvent condition. Concerning the scandals 
which ensued in government circles in France, we have noth- 
ing to do except to point them out as being instructive to any 
government which contemplates lending its aid to a private 

The work of the French company was not wholly barren 
of substantial results. M. de Lesseps, at the meeting of his 
Board of Directors in Paris on July 21, 1887, recommended 
that the plan of the canal be changed so as to make it a canal 
whereby vessels were elevated by means of locks. His re- 
commendation was adopted. He had, however, in a lecture 
delivered in Paris a few years before, advocated the digging 
of a canal deep enough below the sea level to admit of the 
passage of the largest ships without locks. His change of 
views was no doubt brought about, in part at least, by the 
difficulties he had to encounter at the Culebra Mountain. 

According to the survey and report of Lieutenant Rogers 
of the United States navy, made in March, 1887, Culebra is 
a mountain of sand, alluvium, conglomerated and schistous 
shale, which becomes saturated by the excessive rains of that 
latitude, that cause its material to slide toward the lower 
level of the canal. The dry weather causes this land to 
crack open, and deep fissures are formed, which also result 
in land slides into the canal. 

The difference between high and low water mark at 
Colon, on the Atlantic side, is not more than twenty-three 
inches. At Panama, on the Pacific side, the difference is 
generally thirteen feet, but sometimes it is nineteen and 



one-half feet. This may be another reason in favor of a 
lock canal. 

Great Britain and the United States abrogated the Clayton- 
Bulwer treaty. They submitted a new treaty known as the 
Hay-Pauncefote treaty, dated November 18, 1901, which the 
Senate afterwards ratified. By this repeal and the formation 
of this new treaty the foreign policy of this government, in 
respect to the Western Hemisphere, becomes re-established. 

Accordingly, in the year 1902, the Congress of the United 
States passed an Act for the construction of a canal across the 
Isthmus from Colon to Panama on the same line which Count 
de Lesseps had followed. 

The importance of this canal in enabling this government 
to sustain its foreign policy in this hemisphere cannot be 

The effect of choosing this particular route for the canal 
instead of the Nicaragua route is to forever deter or prevent 
European capitalists from building any other canal across the 
Isthmus; for if the Nicaragua route had been selected instead 
of the Panama route, private enterprise, fostered and encour- 
aged by European governments, would doubtless at no distant 
day have completed the construction of the Panama Canal. 

This would have been a constant and an all-pervading 
menace to the United States in its attempt to enforce its 
policy. It would likewise have been a source of weakness 
and insecurity to the government in all its relations and 
dealings with foreign governments. 

Senator M. A. Hanna of Ohio, in his speech in the Senate 
June 6, 1902, in favor of the then pending Panama Canal bill, 
said: "If, as I claim, the route of the Panama Canal is the 
best for the canal ; and if for any cause we should decide to 
construct a canal along the Nicaragua route, what assurance 
and what guaranty have we that some other nation or par- 
ties may not decide to finish the Panama Canal upon its own 
responsibility? " x 

The geographical position of the Panama Canal is such 

1 Tamphlet copy of speech furnished by Senator Hanna. 


that the selection of this route by the United States renders 
it improbable that any other canal will ever be built, either 
as a public or private enterprise. Thus the government is 
strengthened in the maintenance of its foreign policy by the 
canal route which has been selected. 

It is remarkable what good-will the United States has met 
with on the part of the other American republics in its pur- 
pose to construct a canal across the Isthmus. 

The International Conference of the American States in 
January, 1902, unanimously adopted the following resolution : 

"The Republics assembled at the International Conference 
of Mexico applaud the purpose of the United States Govern- 
ment to construct an interoceanic canal, and acknowledge that 
this work will not only be worthy of the American people, 
but also in the highest sense a work of civilization and to the 
greatest degree beneficial to the development of commerce 
between the American states and the other countries of the 
world." 1 

The following is the first article of the Clayton-Bulvver 
treaty of April 19, 1850. 

"Article 1. Neither government will ever obtain or main- 
tain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal, 
nor erect nor maintain any fortifications, or occupy, or fortify, 
or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nica- 
ragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central 
America; nor make use of any protection which either affords 
or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have 
to or with any state or people, for any of the above purposes, 
nor use any alliance or influence that either may possess 
with any state or government through whose territory the 
canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring for the citizens 
or subjects of the one any rights of commerce or navigation 
which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens 
or subjects of the other." 2 

1 Senate Document 330, page 57. 

2 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. IX, page 995. 


Dissatisfaction sprang up in the United States with the 
Clayton-Bulwer treaty as soon as it had been ratified. Octo- 
ber 17, 1856, the Clarendon-Dallas treaty, which amended it 
materially, was ratified by the Senate, but the British govern- 
ment declined to concur. On February 12, 1856, Senator 
Wilson of Massachusetts in a speech recommended that this 
government should declare the Clayton-Bulwer treaty null 
and void. In so doing Mr. Wilson voiced the opinions and 
sentiments of the great body of American statesmen from 
that day to this. The abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty was agitated during Hayes's administration. When 
Garfield was elected, Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, tried 
his hand at it with Earl Granville, but failed. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen, who succeeded Mr. Blaine as Secre- 
tary of State, took the matter up with Lord Granville, but 
met with no better success than Mr. Blaine. The United 
States was becoming embittered toward Great Britain in 
consequence of the treaty and in consequence of Great 
Britain's continued refusal to consent to its abrogation. Its 
recent abrogation by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty has im- 
proved the attitude of the people of the United States toward 
Great Britain more than any other circumstance which has 
arisen in the last fifty years. During all this correspond- 
ence, which, happily for both countries, terminated with the 
abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the United States 
steadfastly claimed that any canal that should be built must 
be under the political control of the United States. The new 
treaty concedes this claim and much more, and the United 
States government will build and control the canal. 

New and serious obstacles to the conclusion of the Panama 
Canal treaty between this government and Colombia sprang 
up in the autumn of 1902. While the civil war was raging 
on the Isthmus, Admiral Casey of the United States navy 
refused to permit Colombia to transport her troops and muni- 
tions of war on the Panama railroad. He was constrained 
to do this because he feared that this action would cause the 
revolutionary army on the Isthmus to attack the railroad. 


Our government explained and directed Admiral Casey not 
to prohibit the transportation of government troops, unless 
he was absolutely certain that their presence would invite 
attack. Colombia in consequence demanded a revision of 
the treaty of 1846. 

The presence of a large naval force of the United States in 
the vicinity of the Panama Canal, and the action of Admiral 
Casey in prohibiting the transportation of troops inspired 
the Colombian government and people with the fear that the 
United States contemplated a permanent occupation of the 
Isthmus. As a result of this condition of things, the build- 
ing of the Nicaragua Canal again came up for discussion in 
the United States. 

After the passage of the Act for the construction of the 
Panama Canal by the Congress of the United States, a treaty 
was made between the United States and the Republic of 
Colombia for the construction of the canal. This treaty is 
known as the Hay-Herran treaty. It required the ratifica- 
tion of the government of Colombia before it could take 

The Colombian Congress was convened by President Mar- 
roquin in the summer of 1903, for the sole purpose of taking 
action upon the treaty. The session of this congress was 
quite protracted, and the reports which reached the United 
States concerning its deliberations were vague, conflicting, 
and unsatisfactory. When the congress came to vote on 
the measure it was unanimous against the ratification of the 

A few weeks followed, in which the people and the press 
of the country were asking the question: What step will our 
government now take? Will it now turn to the Nicaragua 
route, or will it negotiate further with Colombia? This 
question remained unanswered until the early days of Novem- 
ber, 1903, when rumors reached this country that the people 
of Panama had risen in revolution against the Colombian 
government, and had declared their independence. This 
information was immediately followed by a recognition by 


this government of the Republic of Panama, and diplomatic 
relations were at once established with it. Orders were 
issued to our navy in the vicinity of Colon and Panama, 
directing that Colombia should not be permitted to land 
troops within fifty miles on either side of the canal. 

There are two forms of recognition by neutral powers 
which are governed by principles which are more or less well 
settled by the rules of international law. The one is a recog- 
nition of belligerency; the other is the recognition of the 
new State. The recognition of belligerent rights of the 
insurrectionary state by a neutral power naturally precedes 
the recognition of the new State as a sovereign and inde- 
pendent nation. Both these forms of recognition have been 
made at one and the same time in the case of Panama. The 
greater includes the less, and its recognition as an inde- 
pendent republic carries with it by implication the exercise 
of belligerent rights. The doctrine concerning the recogni- 
tion of belligerency is stated by a text-writer in these words: 

"When a civil conflict exists within a state, the question 
arises whether the state of war shall be recognized by other 
nations as existing. Such recognition by a foreign govern- 
ment is justifiable only when necessary for the protection of 
its own interests, and if prematurely given can be regarded 
as a demonstration of sympathy with the rebellion. When 
the contest is of a purely internal character, entirely within 
the territory of the state, it is not the practice, nor is it justi- 
fiable, to recognize the insurgents as belligerents. A for- 
eign state which is adjacent to the seat of insurrection may, 
however, be justified in such recognition when states not 
similarly situated would not be so justified. When the in- 
surrection assumes such a form as to raise a reasonable 
expectation of maritime hostilities, or when acts are done 
at sea by one party or the other, which would be acts of 
war if done between states, recognition of belligerency is 
fully justified. The state of things between the insurgents 
and the parent state must, however, amount to a war, since 
the recognition is supposed to be purely of the war as a fact, 


and the recognition should not be given unless the insurgents 
have a de facto political organization which is in control of 
a definite territory." * 

The doctrine concerning the recognition of a new State is, 
given by the same text-writer as follows : 

"Apart from the rare instances in which a state is formed 
upon territory not previously belonging to a civilized power, 
or in which a state is brought by increase in its civilization 
within the realm of international law, new states generally 
come into existence by breaking off from an existing state. 
In this latter case, the question of recognition of the inde- 
pendence of the new state, either by the parent country or 
by a third power, arises. A third power is not justified in 
giving such recognition until independence is actually estab- 
lished, or while a substantial struggle to subdue the new 
state is being made by the parent country, but recognition 
is proper when the efforts to recover authority are so inade- 
quate as to offer no reasonable ground for supposing that 
success may ultimately be obtained. Premature recognition 
is considered as equivalent to intervention, and may on occa- 
sion be cause for war on the part of the parent state against 
that giving the recognition. Such recognition of a new state 
as an independent nation may be by express declaration ad- 
dressed to the new state, by negotiation of a treaty with it, 
by reception of its diplomatic agents or sending a minister 
to it, and in general by any act fairly indicating an intention 
to recognize it." 2 


John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, writing to Presi- 
dent Monroe in 1816, pointed out admirably the consider- 
ations of law, of morals, and of expediency which are 
involved in recognition. Mr. Adams said: 


"There is a stage in such [revolutionary] contests when 
the party struggling for independence has, as I conceive, a 
right to demand its acknowledgment by neutral parties, and 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
page 1 141. 

2 Ibid., page 11 29. 


when the acknowledgment may be granted without departure 
from the obligations of neutrality. It is the stage when the 
independence is established as a matter of fact, so as to leave 
the chance of the opposite party to recover their dominion 
utterly desperate. The neutral nation must, of course, judge 
for itself when this period has arrived; and as the belligerent 
nation has the same right to judge for itself, it is very likely 
to judge differently from the neutral, and to make it a cause 
or pretext for war, as Great Britain did expressly against 
France in our Revolution, and substantially against Hol- 
land. If war thus results, in point of fact, from the measure 
of recognizing a contested independence, the moral right or 
wrong of the war depends upon the justice and sincerity and 
prudence with which the recognizing nation took the step. 
I am satisfied that the cause of the South Americans, so far 
as it consists in the assertion of independence against Spain, 
is just. But the justice of a cause, however it may enlist 
individual feelings in its favor, is not sufficient to justify 
third parties in siding with it. The fact and the right com- 
bined can alone authorize a neutral to acknowledge a new 
and disputed sovereignty." 1 

In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the 
United States Mr. Justice Grier said: "A civil war is never 
solemnly declared. It becomes such by its accidents. " a In 
the same opinion he says: "War has been well defined to 
be 'that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by 
force.'" 3 The same opinion continues in this language: 
" If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation the 
president is not only authorized but bound to resist force 
by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to ac- 
cept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative 
authority." 4 

There is a popular misapprehension concerning the com- 
mencement of a war between nations by supposing that it 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, page 
1 129, and note 1. 

2 Prize Cases, Black, Vol. II, page 666. 

8 Ibid. * Ibid., page 668. 


must be preceded by a declaration. "Though it is some- 
times stated that war should be preceded by a declaration 
or notice to the enemy, and such was the practice until the 
last century, this formality is not now regarded as essential, 
and in practice it is usually omitted. There have been only 
eleven formal declarations of war since 1700, and during this 
century, since 1870, over sixty wars or acts of reprisal have 
been begun without formal notice." 2 

On November 6, 1903, John Hay, Secretary of State, issued 
a statement of considerable length, setting out the reasons 
why the administration intervened and recognized the Repub- 
lic of Panama. Among other things, it was asserted that it 
was done in order to comply with our treaty obligations of 
1846 with New Granada, and because the obligation of that 
treaty is a covenant which runs with the land. 

This act of intervention could not be justified on the 
ground that the obligations of the treaty ran with the land. 
Covenants which run with the land run in favor of the 
grantee, his heirs or assigns. They do not run in favor of 
a stranger to the title. 

Events followed each other in rapid succession. On 
November 9, 1903, Congress convened. On November 13 
the president received Senor Philipe Bunau-Varilla as the 
accredited representative of the Republic of Panama. On 
November 18 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty was signed. 
On December 2 this treaty was ratified by the Republic of 
Panama by being signed by J. A. Arango, Thomas Arias, and 
M. Espinosa, members of the Junta. 

People may continue to ask themselves the question, What 
constitutes a State? The question, What constitutes a repub- 
lic? is easily answered. It takes three persons to constitute 
a republic, the same number that is required to constitute 
a riot. Inasmuch as the Republic of Panama had no consti- 
tution, no legislature, no statutes, no judiciary, and no con- 
stabulary, when it made this treaty, the difference between 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
pages 1 140, 1 141. 


it and a riot was not great. On December 7, 1903, President 
Roosevelt's message was placed before Congress, embracing 
a copy of the treaty with Panama for ratification by the 

This treaty contains the canal concessions by Panama, and 
it embodies a guaranty on the part of the United States of 
the sovereignty and independence of Panama. It stipulates 
for the payment of ten million dollars cash to the Republic 
of Panama. The ratification of this treaty was opposed by 
Senators Gorman of Maryland, Teller of Colorado, Carmack 
of Tennessee, Morgan of Alabama, Bailey of Texas, Till- 
man of South Carolina, and others. Their principal objections 
to the treaty and to the course of the president in the matter 
can be briefly epitomized thus: that the act of the president 
in so hastily recognizing the independence of Panama was 
unjustifiable, and would justify Colombia in declaring war 
upon the United States. 

Another contention of these senators was that Congress 
alone had the power to commence a war upon another 
nation. 1 

A further contention was that the action of the president 
in using the navy to prevent Colombia from landing troops 
within fifty miles of Colon and Panama was not only a 
violation of our neutrality laws, and a violation of the 
treaty of 1846 with New Granada, but a violation of the 

The Act of Congress of April 20, 1818, prohibits any citi- 
zen of the United States from fitting out any vessel to be 
employed in the service of any foreign State against any State 
with which the United States is at peace. This Act also pro- 
hibits any person to set on foot or provide for, or prepare any 
military or naval expedition or enterprise against any foreign 
State or people with whom the United States is at peace. 2 

1 Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 8, sub-sections 11, 12, 

2 United States Statutes at Large, 447 to 450; United States Revised Code 
(1875), Sections 5281 to 5291. 


The material portion of the treaty of 1846 reads thus: 

" The government of New Granada guarantees to the gov- 
ernment of the United States that the right of way or transit 
across the Isthmus of Panama upon any modes of communi- 
cation that now exist, or that may be hereafter constructed, 
shall be open and free to the government and citizens of the 
United States. . . . And, in order to secure to themselves 
the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and 
as an especial compensation for the said advantages, and for 
the favors they have acquired by the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles 
of this treaty, the United States guaranty positively and effi- 
caciously to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the 
perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned Isthmus, with the 
view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may 
not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while 
this treaty exists; and in consequence, the United States 
also guaranty, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty 
and property which New Granada has and possesses over the 
said territory." 1 

In his messages to Congress President Roosevelt made a 
very forcible and manly statement of the entire matter. He 
was defended in the Senate by Senators Lodge of Massachu- 
setts, Depew of New York, Piatt of Connecticut, Foraker of 
Ohio, and Fairbanks of Indiana. They contended that the 
action of the president in the matter was correct ; that the 
recognition of a new State was a prerogative of the executive, 
and that President Roosevelt's instructions to the navy to 
prevent Colombia from landing troops was justified by the 
circumstances and was not more extraordinary than the con- 
duct of Thomas Jefferson in the Louisiana purchase, when 
he conceded that he did not possess the constitutional 
authority to make the purchase. 

They contended that the conditions of anarchy existing in 
Colombia were such as to render the usual principles of inter- 
national law to a very large extent inapplicable to a situation 
such as was presented by this affair; and that the action of 

1 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. IX, page 8S1. 


President Roosevelt should be viewed with reference to these 
anomalous conditions. Senator Depew contended that a fail- 
ure to ratify the treaty under existing circumstances would 
be to make the United States particeps criminis in defrauding 
the New Panama Canal Company of France out of its prop- 
erty rights, because of the fact that in consequence of the 
existing negotiations with it the company's property rights 
and franchises would soon expire by limitation. 

The Democratic party in the Senate did not unite in oppo- 
sition to the treaty. Several Democratic senators favored 
it, among whom were Senators Bacon of Georgia, Clarke of 
Arkansas, and Simmons of North Carolina. Moreover, the 
legislatures of Louisiana and Mississippi, which are Demo- 
cratic bodies, passed resolutions requesting their senators to 
vote for the ratification of the treaty with Panama. Senator 
Clarke of Arkansas made a very able speech in the Senate, in 
which he defended the administration and favored the ratifi- 
cation of the treaty. Senator Money of Mississippi made a 
speech in favor of ratification, but offered some criticisms. 

The position of the Democratic party with reference to a 
canal across the Isthmus is announced in its national plat- 
form of 1856 thus: 

"Resolved, That the great highway which nature, as well 
as the assent of the states most immediately interested in its 
maintenance, has marked out for a free communication be- 
tween the Atlantic and Pacific oceans constitutes one of the 
most important achievements realized by the spirit of modern 
times and the unconquerable energy of our people. That 
result should be secured by a timely and efficient exertion 
of the control which we have the right to claim over it, and 
no power on earth should be suffered to impede or clog its 
progress by any interference with the relations it may suit 
our policy to establish between our government and the gov- 
ernments of the states within whose dominions it lies. We 
can under no circumstances surrender our preponderance in 
the adjustment of all questions arising out of it." 1 

1 " National Platforms," by McKee, page 54. 


The wisdom of guaranteeing the independence and sover- 
eignty of Panama against all the powers of the earth may 
fairly be questioned if it is contemplated that these relations 
are to continue for any great length of time. This impudent 
little republic would be constantly coming in conflict with 
the various powers as it hisses and shakes its rattles, coiled 
up across the pathway of the world. It could not give pro- 
tection to the life, liberty, or property of its own citizens; 
much less could it afford any protection to foreigners. 

Its revolutionary elements could not be expected to become 
law abiding under a weaker government than Colombia. If 
commerce is to flow through the canal in an unbroken stream, 
sanitary improvements will be required in its vicinity on an 
extensive scale. The sooner that Panama becomes a territory 
of the United States, the better for all the nations and peoples 

The country is indebted to the late Senator Hanna of Ohio 
for the legislation which thrust aside the Nicaragua route 
and substituted the Panama route. In this canal matter alone 
he has builded for himself a monument which any statesman 
could well view with pride. Senator Hanna in his brief 
political career placed himself in the front rank of Ameri- 
can statesmen. He changed, as if by magic, both houses of 
Congress from the support of the Nicaragua route to the 
Panama route. His speech was masterly and convincing, 
but his commanding and forceful personality, rather than the 
speech was the prime cause in producing the change of views 
among the members of Congress. 

On February 23, 1904, the treaty with Panama was rati- 
fied without amendment by the Senate by a vote of sixty-six 
senators for it to fourteen against it. 

The detailed vote by which the treaty was ratified shows 
that all the Republicans present voted for it, while the 
Democrats were divided, as follows: 

Ayes: Bacon, Berry, Clarke of Arkansas, Clay, Cockrell, 
Foster of Louisiana, Gibson, Latimer, McCreary, McEnery, 
Mallory, Money, Simmons, and Taliaferro. 


Nays: Bailey, Bate, Blackburn, Carmack, Culberson, Daniel, 
Dubois, Gorman, Morgan, Nevvlands, Patterson, Pettus, Teller, 
and Tillman. 

There were six senators absent and paired for the treaty, 
and three absentees paired against the treaty. If a full 
Senate had been present and voting, the final vote would 
have been 72 for and 17 against. 

The pairs were : Quay of Pennsylvania and Clark of Montana 
with Overman of North Carolina; Foster of Washington and 
Hawley of Connecticut with McLaurin of Mississippi; Burton 
of Kansas and Stone of Missouri with Martin of Virginia. 
The pairs were two to one, as a two-thirds vote was necessary. 

The small but able body of senators who voted against the 
ratification of the treaty was not opposed to the construction 
of a canal. These senators were opposed to the treaty not 
only on account of the considerations heretofore named, but 
on account of the fact that they, or most of them, believed 
that the Nicaragua route was preferable. The canal bill, 
which was approved June 28, 1902, contained a provision in 
section four, popularly known as the Spooner Amendment, 
which provided that should the president be unable to obtain 
a satisfactory title and the control of the necessary territory 
for the Panama route within a reasonable time and upon 
reasonable terms, efforts should be made to secure a route 
from Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The minority contended 
that upon the refusal of Colombia to ratify the Hay-Herran 
treaty the law became mandatory upon the president to 
abandon the Panama for the Nicaragua route. 

These honest differences of opinion have become simply 
a matter of history, while both the great political parties of 
the country will now most cordially unite in pushing the 
work to a successful completion on the Panama route. 

This stupendous work is to be performed by the United 
States. It is needful that the people of this country should 
be prepared to meet the new responsibilities which are 
imposed upon them by these new relations with South and 
Central America. 



The condition of revolution, anarchy, and military despot- 
ism which has prevailed and which still prevails among the 
Spanish republics necessarily forces upon the United States 
a consideration of the question as to what this government 
can do or ought to do to aid these republics to lift themselves 
up and out of these conditions and give them well ordered 

The maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine itself begets a 
responsibility on the part of the United States to see that its 
foreign policy is not a shield to protect the continued exist- 
ence of revolution, anarchy, and military despotism. 

The following is a brief sketch of these revolutionary con- 
ditions, beginning with the Republic of Mexico. A national 
Congress convened September 13, 1813, and this body de- 
clared Mexico independent on October 13 following, and a 
constitution was promulgated on October 22, 18 14. For 
several years subsequently a merely partisan warfare among 
the patriot leaders took place, who were gradually driven 
from the field, killed, imprisoned, or obliged, like wild 
beasts, to hide in the mountains, until, in 1820, the author- 
ity of Spain appeared to be fully re-established in Mexico. 
Another revolution began by proclaiming Mexico independ- 
ent on February 24, 1821. An executive junta of five persons 
was formed, one of whom, Don Augustin Iturbide, was chosen 
president. On May 19, 1822, Iturbide was elected Emperor 
of Mexico by the Mexican Congress, by a vote of sixty-seven 
in favor to fifteen against. The decision was not a valid 
one, because the law required one hundred and two mem- 
bers to be present. Only ninety-four were present. He 
ascended the throne under the title of Augustin I, Emperor 


of Mexico. A revolution followed, of which Santa Anna 
was the leader, resulting in the abdication of the throne by 
Iturbide on March 19, 1823. The latter was sent into exile 
in Italy upon an annuity of $25,000, and there he took up his 
residence, with his family. He secretly, however, returned 
to Mexico, where he was tried and convicted, and shot as a 
traitor. A few months after his abdication of the throne the 
Mexican Congress conferred the executive power of the 
government upon a military triumvirate composed of Gen- 
erals Nicolas Bravo, Guadalupe Victoria, and Pedio Celestrio 

A constitution modeled after the Constitution of the 
United States was adopted, and on October 10, 1824, Vic- 
toria became president and Bravo vice-president for a term 
of four years. Bravo joined an armed rebellion against the 
government, of which Santa Anna was the leader, was im- 
peached and sent into exile, but later was allowed to return. 
Gomez Pedraza was constitutionally elected to succeed 
Victoria by a vote of eleven States for him to seven States 
for Guerrero. A revolution followed, which resulted in 
Pedraza secreting himself and fleeing the country from the 
successful and infuriated revolutionists. 

The Mexican Congress assembled on January 1, 1829, and 
annulled the election of Pedraza and chose Guerrero as presi- 
dent to succeed Victoria, who was the first president under 
the constitution. Thus the constitution itself was ignored 
and trampled upon by Congress before the end of the term 
of the first president. Victoria's term ended on April 1, 
1829. Guerrero was elected and took the office as presi- 
dent. Yucatan seceded, a new revolution was started among 
the people, and Guerrero was seized, tried, and condemned 
to death. He was shot on February 14, 183 1, before the 
second year of his presidential term had expired. The ac- 
tion of Congress in electing him was a gross violation of the 
constitution. There was no provision of the Mexican consti- 
tution which conferred on Congress the right or power to set 
aside a regular and valid election of a president and substi- 


tute a president of its own instead. The execution of Guer- 
rero placed Bustamente, the vice-president, at the head of the 
government as president. Bustamente's title to the vice- 
presidency was good. He had been elected vice-president 
at the same time Pedraza was elected president, and was 
also elected vice-president by Congress when it elected 

Revolutions now followed each other in rapid succession 
until, in 1833, Santa Anna became president and Bustamente 
and his principal adherents were sent into exile. Texas 
seceded, and Santa Anna was defeated and taken prisoner 
at the battle of San Jacinto. 

Bustamente became president April 19, 1837, but was suc- 
ceeded by Santa Anna, who after a visit to President Jack- 
son at Washington had been sent back to Mexico in a United 
States ship-of-war. He held the office of president till July 
10, 1839, when Nicolas Bravo became president for a week. 
A long period of confusion followed during which the con- 
stitution was suspended and the government became a dicta- 
torship, at the head of which were Santa Anna, Bravo, and 
Canalizo, from October 10, 1841, to June 4, 1844. Consti- 
tutional government was resumed in 1844, with Santa Anna 
as president, under a constitution promulgated June 12, 1843. 
Santa Anna was deposed and banished by a revolution, and 
was succeeded, September 20, 1844, by Canalizo, who was 
himself deposed by a revolution December 6 of the same 
year. His successor, Herrera, was driven from office by a 
revolution in December, 1845, when he was succeeded by 
General Ampudia, under whose administration the war with 
the United States was commenced. 

Santa Anna returned from banishment and took command 
of the Mexican army, and fought the United States with 
vigor. He gained supreme power, but at the close of the 
war he was forced to leave the country and go to Jamaica, 
and Herrera resumed the presidency from which he had been 
driven. Herrera was succeeded by General Arista as presi- 
dent in January, 1853. Santa Anna was recalled from banish- 



merit by a decree issued in March, 1853, and for the fifth time 
he was placed at the head of the government with the title 
of president on April 20, 1853. He was suspected of a de- 
sign to convert the republic into a monarchy. A revolution 
ensued resulting in the flight of Santa Anna, in August, 
1853. General Carrera thereupon became president, which 
position he held for twenty-seven days, when he was com- 
pelled to retire, September 12. After three weeks of anarchy 
Alvarez was made president by a junta, and held the office 
from October to December, when he retired and delegated 
his authority to Comonfort. 

The new constitution of 1857 was adopted, which prohib- 
ited the president from holding the office for a longer period 
than one term of four years, but it permitted him to serve 
longer, provided the term of another incumbent intervened. 
In other words, he could not succeed himself. A sketch of 
the revolution under which Comonfort was deposed and the 
empire formed is found in another place under the title of 
"The Empire of Maximilian." 

Juarez died July 18, 1872, while still holding the office of 
president. Lerdo was at the time president of the Supreme 
Court of Mexico, and under the constitution became president 
upon the death of Juarez. He was elected president in 1876, 
according to the Acts of Congress, but his opponents declared 
his election fraudulent and void, and Iglesias, president of 
the Supreme Court, assumed the presidency of the republic 
in Guanajuato. Porfirio Diaz, who had long been in revolt, 
advanced on the City of Mexico. Lerdo' s army was de- 
feated in the following November, and Lerdo himself fled 
to Acapulco and thence to the United States. This left 
Iglesias the constitutional president by virtue of his presi- 
dency of the Supreme Court. 

Diaz soon put to flight the few troops which remained 
faithful to the cause of Iglesias, while the other troops re- 
maining under arms went over to the side of Diaz. On Feb- 
ruary 11, 1877, ne returned to the capital and took charge 
of the presidency. The Mexican Congress assembled the 


following April, and on May 6, 1877, he took the oath of 
office. Soon after Mexico became agitated by a false and 
preposterous rumor that the United States contemplated re- 
instating Lerdo, as well as annexing Mexico. This rumor 
was circulated throughout the length and breadth of the 
Mexican Republic, and was generally credited by the masses 
of the people. The purpose here is not to charge that Diaz 
himself originated and propagated the rumor, but whether 
he did or not, he used it with great tact and skill as a means 
of acquiring new increments of power and of allaying and 
quieting the spirit of faction and opposition to him. 

Diaz, being then ineligible to hold a second term without 
an interval of one term, permitted his friend Manuel Gonzalez 
to hold the presidential office during the next four years, 
beginning December 1, 1880. Diaz, however, had the con- 
stitution of Mexico amended so as to permit the president 
to hold office for an unlimited period, through the instru- 
mentality of successive elections every four years. Under 
the provisions of this amendment Diaz has held the office of 
president of the Republic of Mexico ever since the expiration 
of the term of Gonzalez in 1884. He still holds the office, and 
in all probability will hold it for life. He has brought great 
peace and order out of all this chaos and revolution, and 
Mexico has attained to a condition of great prosperity under 
his administrations. An election takes place every four years, 
but the proceedings seem to be purely perfunctory. 

The ability and will of a people to change presidents, after 
a reasonable time in office, no matter how able or valuable 
they may be, are essential elements of a free government. 

The Republic of Colombia, composing New Granada, Vene- 
zuela, and Ecuador, was proclaimed by Simon Bolivar in 
18 19. The Colombian Congress assembled in January, 1821, 
and promulgated a federal constitution August 30 of the 
same year. The republic was rent by intestine factions and 
revolutions, and in the year 1830 Venezuela seceded and set 
up a republican government of its own. In 1831 Ecuador 
seceded and formed an independent republic. The three 


republics thereupon were known as the republics of Vene- 
zuela, Ecuador, and New Granada. 

In recent years the Republic of New Granada has resumed 
the name of the Republic of Colombia, by which it was 
known prior to the secession of Venezuela and Ecuador. It 
formed a new constitution in 1832, with Santander as presi- 
dent. One of Santander's measures, whereby New Granada 
assumed the payment of one-half the debt of the defunct re- 
public, rendered him unpopular, and he was succeeded by 
his political enemy Marquez as president. This resulted in 
a civil war, which lasted until 1841, and left the country in 
a weak and miserable condition. The civil strife terminated 
in favor of Marquez. In 1840 the province of Cartagena had 
seceded, and shortly thereafter the provinces of Panama and 
Veragua declared themselves independent under the title of 
the State of the Isthmus of Panama. A reconciliation was 
soon effected, and the new constitution of 1843 was framed. 
In 1853 another constitution was adopted, which expressly 
conferred on every province the right to declare itself inde- 
pendent and to enter into merely federal relations with the 
central republic. In 1856 and 1857 the provinces of Antio- 
quia and Panama took advantage of the permission. An 
insurrection broke out in 1859 which was fostered by ex- 
president Mosquera, and later a regular civil war ensued, in 
which Bogota was captured and Mosquera assumed the chief 
power. A congress convened at Bogota thereupon estab- 
lished the government under the name of United States of 
Colombia, and adopted a new constitution and made Mosquera 
dictator. Manuel Murillo Toro was president from 1864 to 
1866. His term was disturbed by various rebellions, and 
when Mosquera succeeded him he found matters in such a 
disorganized condition that he offered to retire. Mosquera 
was impeached after the tender of his resignation had been 
refused by Congress, and condemned to two years' imprison- 
ment, but this sentence was afterwards commuted to two 
years' exile. Santos Guitterez was president from 1868 to 
1870. His administration was disturbed by revolutions in 


different parts of the republic, the most important of which 
was that in Panama, where absolute disorganization pre- 
vailed. During several years, beginning with the year 
1872, peace prevailed in the Republic of Colombia, and 
the people began to turn their attention to the develop- 
ment of its matchless resources. A revolution occurred in 
1901, which near the end of the year 1902 was carried on 
with great vigor, but resulted in the ultimate triumph of 
the government. 

The relations of Panama to Colombia merit a brief synopsis. 
Panama and Veragua seceded from New Granada in 1841 and 
afterwards became pacified. Panama and Antioquia seceded 
under the provision of the constitution of 1853, which per- 
mitted them to declare themselves independent and maintain 
only federal relations. In 1868 to 1870 Panama organized an 
independent government which succumbed to superior force. 
Once more driven to desperation the people of Panama at- 
tempted secession in 1885, resulting in the burning of Colon 
and the protection of Panama by American and British war- 
vessels. In November, 1903, Panama again seceded and set 
up a republic of its own, and maintains it under the protec- 
tion of the United States. 

In his message of December 7, 1903, President Roosevelt 
enumerated fifty-three revolutions and insurrections which 
had taken place in Panama during the last fifty-seven years ; 
and he stated further that the list is but a partial one. 

Venezuela adopted a constitution in the year 183 1. For 
the first fifteen years peace and quiet reigned in that country. 
In 1864 there began a series of civil wars and revolutions 
which continued, with but short periods of rest, down to the 
clcse of 1870. The chief rival parties in these internal dis- 
sensions were the Unionists and the Federalists ; the former 
aimed at securing a strong central government, while the 
latter, who were ultimately victorious, desired to obtain a 
measure of independence for the separate States. Don Guz- 
man Blanco, a Federalist, was declared provisional president, 
and continued as dictator until 1873, after which he was 


elected constitutional president for four years. Under his 
administration the republic prospered. 

Ignacio Andrade, the candidate of the liberal party, was 
elected president of Venezuela, and was regularly inaugurated 
March 4,1898, for a term of four years, as the successor to 
Crespo. He was a timid man and possessed no military 
qualifications whatsoever. He had just fairly entered upon 
the administration of the government when Cipriano Castro, 
who had failed to secure an appointment to an office, entered 
into a conspiracy against the government in August, 1899, at 
his home in the Andes Mountains in western Venezuela. He 
started out with but sixty of his barefoot neighbors, and 
called Andinos "to liberate Venezuela," to use his own 
phrase. As he went, the new accessions to his ranks swelled 
to the number of ten thousand. When he appeared before 
Caracas, Andrade fled to Jamaica with enough of the govern- 
ment funds to support him in a prolonged exile, while the 
army of the government went over in a body to Castro and 
hailed him as the liberator of Venezuela. The only thing 
Venezuela was getting liberated from was the result of the 
presidential election which had taken place about a year pre- 
vious, and which entitled Andrade to hold the office for 
four years. Castro entered Caracas at the head of his army 
thus augmented by the national troops on October 20, 1899, 
and was proclaimed president of Venezuela by the people. 
At a subsequent period the national Congress declared him 
president. Matos, a member of Andrade's cabinet, and 
others organized a bloody revolution against Castro. The 
decisive battle of La Victoria near Caracas in the autumn 
of 1902 resulted in favor of Castro. His complications after- 
ward with the European allies are familiar history. 

In Venezuela and in many of the other republics, when a 
man is prominent enough to wear shoes every day, and finds 
himself among the "outs" in politics, he at once becomes a 
"liberator," waxes enthusiastic on the subject of liberty, or- 
ganizes a riot, buys shoes for the leaders, and makes generals 
of them. They proceed on their all-conquering way until 


they approach within a day's march of the national capital.. 
This is defended by the national forces, which go over to 
the liberator, and they all enter the capital together amid 
bonfires and the acclamations of the multitude, who have 
been so providentially set free. 

Peru, which was nearly ruined by its disastrous war with 
Chile, has had its full share of revolutions, which will not 
be dwelt upon. Aguero was elected first president of Peru 
February 26, 1823, but was deposed before the end of his 
term, although he was an able and capable official. General 
Lamar, the second president, was elected in 1827 for a term 
of four years, but he was deposed before two years of his term 
had expired. Salavery seized the supreme power in 1836. 
Peru was in a revolutionary condition until 1844. From 
1844 t0 1875 it had two revolutions. In 1879 the disastrous 
war with Chile began. 

Bolivia elected General Sucre, the first president, for life 
in 1826. He accepted the office for two years. Santa Cruz 
was elected president in 1828, but a year later the government 
was overturned for a time by a revolution led by General 
Blanco. In 1839 Bolivia came under the dominion of Peru, 
but a successful revolution was soon started, which resulted in 
installing General Ballivian as ruler. In 1848 Belzu headed 
a successful military revolution, and became president. Gen- 
eral Cordova succeeded him, when a new revolution occurred 
in 1859, which compelled him to flee the country. Linares, 
the originator of the revolution, took his place as president, 
but was deposed in 1861, and Dr. Acha became president by 
election. A new military revolution led by Melgarejo broke 
out in February, 1865. He defeated Dr. Acha, and assumed 
the government of the country. He overcame two revolu- 
tions against his own sway, declared a political amnesty, be- 
came dictator in 1 871, and loaded Bolivia with an enormous 
foreign debt. President Alonzo, early in 1899, went at the 
head of a body of troops to the frontiers to suppress a revolu- 
tion. His enemies at the capital proclaimed a board of gov- 
ernment and barricaded the streets. This revolution was 


successful, and Alonzo and his ministry fled to Chile. 1 Ac- 
cording to newspaper reports, General Pando, the leader of 
the revolutionists, took charge as president. The closing 
days of the year 1902 found Bolivia engaged in a new revo- 
lution against General Pando as president, who acquired his 
title and position through a preceding revolution. 

From the date of the secession of Ecuador, in 183 1, until 
the year 1852, the history of the Republic of Ecuador was 
little else than a series of pronunciamentos and attempted 
revolutions. Diego Noboa was elected president in 1850, 
but soon after was deposed and exiled. Urbina thereupon 
became practically dictator and was succeeded in 1856 by 
General Francisco Robles. Robles abdicated and left the 
country in 1859. Dr. Gabriel Garcia was elected president 
by the national convention of 1861. He favored a French 
protectorate and fell into disrepute, tendered his resignation 
in 1864, and owing to his despotic acts in attempting to 
establish a dictatorship, retired from office in September, 
1865. In 1869 a revolution broke out in Quito under Moreno 
which brought the administration of the office of the presi- 
dent by Espinoza to a close, and though the national con- 
vention appointed Carvajal to the vacant office, yet Moreno 
succeeded in securing his own election in 1870 for a term of 
six years. He was assassinated on August 14, 1875. Dr. 
Borneo succeeded to the presidency, and an insurrection 
followed in the next December in which the government 
forces were completely routed at Golte. This will suffice 
for Ecuador without pursuing the matter down to date. 

The government of Chile is professedly republican, and its 
offices elective, but practically it has been little more than 
a dictatorship, in which the forms of the constitution have 
been tolerably well preserved. It has, however, been the 
least revolutionary of all the Spanish republics. In Chile 
there has been an evolution from its original feudal and 
oligarchical condition toward a more popular government in 
which the right of suffrage has been made almost universal. 

1 " New York Independent," January 5, 1S99, and April 20, 1S99. 


Balmaceda, the leader of this movement, became president 
in 1885, and near the end of his official term began to plot, 
like all other one-term constitutional presidents, to so shape 
affairs that his favorite Senor Sanfuentes should succeed 
him. This resulted in a conflict between the executive and 
legislative branches of the government. After some months 
of agitation Congress declared war on the executive branch of 
the government, and after a bloody strife defeated the presi- 
dent, who, rather than be taken prisoner, committed suicide 
December 19, 1891, in his place of concealment in the Argen- 
tine legation, at the capital of Chile. Balmaceda had practi- 
cally assumed dictatorial powers before the war began. The 
conclusion of the war left the legislative branch of the gov- 
ernment almost omnipotent, with the president shorn of his 
former power, and but little more than a mere figurehead. 

The Argentine Republic has had its revolutions and seces- 
sions. The loss of Uruguay and Paraguay, which had formed 
a part of one viceroyalty under Spain, were trivial circum- 
stances compared with the secession of Buenos Ayres, which 
returned and resumed its federal relations a few years later. 
The Argentine Republic is not in fact a republic, but an 
oligarchy composed of men who, with very few exceptions, 
are corrupt, who make politics a. species of commerce, and 
who in the absence of shame make no concealment of their 
venality. Politics is a regular business which is controlled 
by a ring of adventurers. From the year 1852 to 1880 the 
Argentines passed through a long period of revolutions, 
when a pacific condition was reached. In a time of profound 
peace during the financial crisis of 1890 gold went to a pre- 
mium of 230 in the Argentine Republic, revealing not only 
the wretchedness of the financial system, but exposing the 
complicity of the government in the issue of spurious notes 
in the sum of $15,000,000 by the Bank of Cordoba. The 
immense national, provincial, and municipal debts of the 
country are the legacies of its rule of rapine and plunder. 
When its John Law system of finances exploded like the 
"Mississippi Bubble," the fraudulent character of its gov- 


ernmental acts and agencies became conspicuous through- 
out all the ramifications of authority. General Roca became 
president in 1880, and used his power and patronage to make 
his brother-in-law Juarez Celman his successor, who is re- 
puted to have amassed a fortune during his tenure of office. 
Paper money had been for years, up to 1885, at par with gold. 
In 1890 gold fluctuated between two hundred and three hun- 
dred. Real-property mortgages called cedulas, payable to the 
bearer, were issued on the real property of the capital, prov- 
inces, and territories which passed current as money. A 
national banking law was enacted which issued a large amount 
of paper currency. Then came a free banking law which per- 
mitted the issuance of $190,000,000, which was increased in 
a clandestine manner to $255,000,000 and legalized by the 
government. When the revolution of July, 1890, broke out, 
it was found that the national treasury had been robbed of 
$500,000,000. The national and provincial banks were left 
insolvent, having lent the money of their depositors on worth- 
less security to politicians and their friends. The revolution 
resulted in the resignation of Celman and certain efforts at 
reform. These amounted to little, however, as a new revolu- 
tion broke out consequent upon the election of Luis Sanez 
Pana as president. Beginning in the province of Corrientes, 
it spread until the entire country was convulsed by insur- 
rectionary movements. 

In theory the government of Uruguay resembles that of the 
United States, but in practice it has degenerated into a mili- 
tary despotism. 

Paraguay has never been entitled to the name of a republic. 
It has been since 1814 a dictatorship, although in form it is 
a constitutional republic. " Marriage has fallen so completely 
out of fashion in Paraguay that only three per cent of the 
births are legitimate." 1 

Any further discussion of the success and failure of a re- 
publican form of government in these remote and distant 
countries must be laid aside for a brief synopsis of such mat- 

1 Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, Vol. XVIII, page 244. 


ters in other republics which are nearer home. The Republic 
of Central America was formed in 1823. It had formerly 
been a part of Mexico, and its representatives sat in the Con- 
gress of Iturbide. It was composed of Guatemala, Salvador, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, which had seceded 
from Mexico. In 1839 Nicaragua and Honduras seceded 
from Central America and set up separate republics of their 
own. During the following year Costa Rica seceded. In 
1847 Guatemala succeeded in becoming independent of Sal- 
vador. Thus from one nest five little bantam republics were 
hatched, and all with spurs on. No attempt will be made 
to give any account of their insurrections, revolutions, and 
fights among themselves. They had a history before they 
separated. " During the brief existence of the federal union, 
no fewer than three hundred and ninety-six persons exercised 
the supreme power of the republic and the different States." 1 
Since then each of the five several independent governments, 
and especially Nicaragua, has been "the scene of an almost 
uninterrupted series of military pronunciamentos, popular 
revolts, partial or general revolutions by which the lands have 
been wasted, its powers and industries destroyed, and the 
whole people reduced to a state of moral debasement, scarcely 
elsewhere paralleled in Christendom." 2 

The Republic of Hayti has a record for revolution and in- 
stability which transcends all other republics. The great 
majority of its rulers have not been permitted to hold office 
for their full official terms. Many, if not a majority of them, 
have met a violent death while in office. Sanloque, an ex- 
slave and full-blooded negro, was elected president in 1846. 
In 1849 ne assumed the imperial title, and the following year 
he was crowned Faustin I, Emperor. Civil war has been the 
order of the day in the Republic of Hayti. Its bloody and 
revolutionary history is a shame and a reproach to republican 
institutions. Even so late as August, 1902, a formidable 
bloody revolution was inaugurated, but the insurgent forces 

1 Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, Vol. XVII, page 479. 

2 Ibid. 


were finally defeated. Since 1902 other revolutions have 
taken place in Hayti and San Domingo, seemingly with as 
much frequency as the moon's changes. During the revolu- 
tion in San Domingo in the early part of the year 1904 it 
transpired that she had defaulted in the payment of the in- 
terest on her public debt, which was owed principally in 
Europe, and that a large element of her people were looking 
to the operation of the Monroe Doctrine as a means of escap- 
ing from the demands of her creditors. 

The interests of our common humanity are not alone the 
grounds on which the Monroe Doctrine has fixed a great re- 
sponsibility upon the United States. These revolutionary 
republics are piling up their public debts mountain high. 
These debts are owed almost exclusively in Europe. Euro- 
peans are doing business in nearly all the leading cities of 
these republics. Their property is often taken or destroyed, 
for which reparation by the respective governments of these 
European subjects is constantly demanded, as well as repara- 
tion for other wrongs. While the redress which these gov- 
ernments are seeking and will continue to seek may not be 
in conflict with the Monroe Doctrine, yet the retention for 
a long period of any portion of the territory of these republics 
would be a violation of it. Hence each case will stand upon 
its own footing, and the questions growing out of such efforts 
by European governments will at times become questions of 
great nicety and perplexity. 

The immense national debts and the instability of these 
governments have reduced the national credit. Argentine 
has a per capita indebtedness of $128.85, Uruguay of $148.06, 
Honduras of $219.60. The per capita indebtedness of the 
United States is $14.52, of Mexico $13.36. The United 
States pays forty-four cents per annum interest per capita, 
while Mexico pays eighty-four cents per capita. 

The relations of Church and State, the right of secession, 
and the race question as factors in producing these revolu- 
tionary conditions in the Spanish republics have been re- 
ferred to elsewhere. 


It is not the purpose to go into these questions here, but it 
may be said in passing that the character and condition of 
the people are also powerful factors. In the United States 
of America the initiative in nearly all public matters is with 
the people; in the Spanish-American republics it is with the 
politicians. As an exception to this rule it should be stated 
that in selecting candidates for president and vice-president 
the initiative is with the politicians in the United States. 
These candidates are usually chosen from among the politi- 
cians, by the politicians, and for the politicians. They have 
dealt fairly well with the people, however, and the candi- 
dates have generally been able, honest, and patriotic. Occa- 
sionally such candidates have entered the arena with the odor 
upon them of the crooked and underground passages through 
which they have travelled, and sometimes they have been tat- 
tooed from head to foot with the multiform and variegated 
emblems of their venality. 

The provision in many of the constitutions of the Spanish- 
American republics, which prohibits the incumbent in the 
office of president from holding his office for more than one 
successive term, has worked disastrously, resulting in the 
incumbent using the vast machinery of his power to put some 
friend in office as his successor. Some of the revolutions or 
outbreaks are merely colorable and pretended ones, in order 
to enable the general governments to interfere in the prov- 
inces ostensibly to suppress insurrections, but really to 
thwart the will of the people at the polls. 

An interference on the part of the general governments 
with the rights of the States is a fruitful source of discontent 
and revolution. These Spanish-Americans have copied our 
federal constitution, but they have never been able to master 
our dual form of government. Its imperium in imperio form 
and spirit is a snare and a stumbling-block to them. No ac- 
count is here made of the numerous wars which have taken 
place between these republics. Most of these wars could 
readily and easily have been settled by arbitration. These 
republics are taking great interest in the subject of arbitra- 


tion as a means of settling international disputes, and good 
results may well be expected in such matters. The serious 
problem relates to civil wars, insurrections, and revolutions, 
for the settlement of these questions by arbitration would be 
difficult, if not impossible. Such questions as the validity 
of an election to the office of president and vice-president, 
and indeed of the validity of the election of state or provin- 
cial governors and matters of that character, could be sub- 
mitted to arbitration. 

It has been charged, and no doubt truthfully, that some 
of the European governments have sided with the revolu- 
tionists. President Castro of Venezuela is reported to have 
asserted that Great Britain took sides with the revolutionists 
in 1902. In this he was evidently mistaken. There is noth- 
ing in the Monroe Doctrine which questions the right of any 
European government to take sides with either the govern- 
ment or the revolutionists in any civil war. The revolutionary 
character of these Spanish republics renders the position of 
the United States one of extreme delicacy in its assertion of 
the Monroe Doctrine, and it is possible that European gov- 
ernments might, when the occasion presents itself, lend their 
aid toward making them still more revolutionary. 

The proteges of our foreign policy should be expected and 
required to confer the blessings of a good, well-administered, 
orderly, and stable government upon the masses of the people 
who are in their keeping. English, German, French, Italian, 
and other European merchants, manufacturers, and capitalists 
have large interests located in various parts of the Spanish 
republics. Their respective governments naturally seek to 
give them all the protection and defence which would be per- 
missible under the provisions of international law. A quasi 
monarchy, such as we now see in Mexico, is far preferable to 
the all-pervading losses, debauchery, and ruthless slaughter 
which result from these frequent revolutions. 

The poverty of the resources of these republics in respect 
to their ability to put down revolutions and insurrections 
became painfully conspicuous during the year 1902, when 


Venezuela and Colombia were attempting to suppress their 
respective revolutions. A remedy for this is to be found in 
the extension of the federal system. When Simon Bolivar 
originated the plan to convene a congress at Panama, his 
real purpose was to consolidate the entire continent of South 
America into one federative republic, with himself at its 
head for the time being as dictator. It may have been his 
purpose to have induced Mexico and Central America to be- 
come a part of this confederacy. The Panama Congress was 
looked forward to as one of the greatest events of all the 
ages. Its insignificant character has already been mentioned. 
While Bolivar's dream of universal republican empire for 
South America may have been a little too magnificent, yet 
it was not unreasonable for him to hope and expect that at 
least New Granada, now Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, 
and Bolivia, upon having secured their independence of Spain, 
would have naturally crystallized into an enduring federal re- 
public. They should do so now. 

The five little insignificant, quarrelsome republics, which 
from 1 823 to 1833 constituted the Republic of Central America, 
should resume their federal relations. 

The Argentine Republic, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay 
should take a survey of the face of nature and listen to 
nature's admonitions and unite into a federal republic. 
These republics, thus reorganized, with separation of Church 
and State, would command the respect of the world, at home 
and abroad. This power, coupled with a. due respect for the 
rights of the States, and the principle of local self-govern- 
ment, would overawe any ordinary attempt at insurrection or 
revolution. Added to these things an extension of the prin- 
ciple of arbitration as promulgated by the Second Interna- 
tional Conference of American States would enable these 
exhausted republics to husband their resources, reduce their 
rate of interest, liquidate their debts, bring order out of 
chaos, help the people to accumulate and retain their 
property, and build up efficient common-school systems. 

As matters now stand, things are going from bad to worse, 


until the whole scheme of republican government in Spanish- 
America will end in disaster unless a radical change is 
brought about. The Spanish-American republics must fed- 
erate, or they must perish. 

The scheme of federation whereby many of the small re- 
publics might become States in larger ones is a good one, but 
it is beset with many difficulties. In 1899 Alfaro, president 
of Ecuador, asked permission of Congress to propose an in- 
ternational conference to the governments of Colombia and 
Venezuela to discuss the expediency of preparing a new con- 
stitution whereby the old Republic of Colombia, founded by 
Bolivar, should be restored. Nothing was done. On August 
25, 1898, a convention met at Menagua and formulated a 
federal constitution, whereby Honduras, Nicaragua, and Sal- 
vador were to be united into a union to be known as the 
Greater Republic of Central America. Guatemala and Costa 
Rica, which had at one time with the other three constituted 
the Republic of Central America, stood aloof and declined to 
participate. A constitution was framed and a federative com- 
mission was appointed to work out and complete the details. 
The constitution provided that the first general election for 
president should take place on the ensuing December 1. 
The commission, in the exercise of its powers on November 1, 
appointed J. Rosa Pacose president, to serve until the regular 
election in December. The Salvadoreans, believing that the 
chief expense of maintaining the federal government would 
fall on them, revolted. President Zeloya of Nicaragua, who 
had assumed the title of governor of the State of Nicaragua, 
was called upon to suppress the revolt, but declined to permit 
the Nicaraguan troops to be used to uphold the union. The 
new government, however, sent an army into Salvador, which 
was defeated. 

Accordingly, on November 30, the federal commissioners 
formally declared the union dissolved, and the three States 
respectively resumed absolute sovereignty. Thus ended the 
republic of thirty days' duration. 

The constitutional provision which in late years has been 


incorporated into the constitutions of many of the Spanish- 
American republics, limiting the president to only one term, 
has not proved to be salutary. It is a conspicuous failure, 
for it has resulted in inducing the outgoing incumbent to 
use his influence, patronage, and power to name his own suc- 
cessor. It often happens that this successor is expected in 
like manner to hand the office back to his benefactor at the 
end of his term. The president is thus put out of office, 
while his party and faction remain in power. The change of 
presidents is no change of political bosses or factions. A 
nominal change of masters does not purge the body politic 
of its corruption. The result is that a good and capable 
executive gives place at a critical juncture to a vicious and 
incapable one. 

General Roca, who is a soldier and a statesman, vacated 
the presidential office at a critical period of Argentina's his- 
tory, when a continuance of his distinguished services was 
sorely needed, to give place to his brother-in-law, Celman, 
who would not have been chosen for that office by the people, 
as an original proposition with them, and who was totally 
incapable of guiding the ship of state through a storm. 
Mexico, after a trial of about thirty years of this one-term 
provision, caused it to be stricken from her constitution, and 
as a result has enjoyed peace and prosperity. The efforts of 
President Balmaceda to secure the succession to Senor San- 
fuentes as president of Chile brought on the bloody conflict 
of 1885 between the executive and legislative branches of 
the Republic of Chile. Revolution after revolution has been 
brought about in the Spanish republics by the operation of 
the one-term provision. A survey of this subject produces 
the conviction that it is better that the party and faction 
which put the president in power should go out of power with 
him. Experience demonstrates that it is better that the 
people should select their presidents rather than the out- 
going incumbent. It has been seen, also, that there are 
crises in the history of every republic when a change of 

presidents is extremely hazardous. 



The supreme need of these republics is to reach a basis in 
the administration of affairs whereby changes of policies and 
parties shall be made through the peaceful instrumentality of 
the ballot-box. The New York "Independent" of May 3, 
1900, makes the following assertion: "We believe it is a 
fact that no party ever came into power in a Latin-American 
republic through an election at the polls. Bullets, not ballots, 
is the only method by which the rascals are turned out." An 
improvement in the condition of affairs must speedily take 
place among the Latin-American republics, or a public 
opinion will inevitably grow up in the United States which 
will result in the abrogation of the Monroe Doctrine in re- 
spect to them. 



A PEACE movement was organized in the year 1815, and has 
grown until the present day, until there are now a number of 
peace organizations in different parts of the world. The peace 
congress movement started in 1843, but after 1852 it was dis- 
continued until 1889, when the first of a new series of peace 
congresses was held in Paris. Several have been held since in 
different capitals and cities of Europe. 

In October, 1887, Mr. Cremer, a member of the British Par- 
liament, came to this country bringing a memorial signed by 
two hundred and thirty-four members of Parliament, asking the 
United States to co-operate with Great Britain on this subject. 

The Sherman Concurrent Resolution passed Congress in the 
spring of 1890, requesting the President of the United States 
from time to time, as occasion might arise, to negotiate with 
foreign nations for the settlement of difficulties by arbitration. 

Later on, in the same year, came the Pan-American Con- 
gress, and a form of arbitration treaty was sent out to all the 
civilized nations of the world. 

President Harrison sent the following message to Congress: 

Executive Mansion, Sept. 3, 1890. 
To the Senate and House of Representatives : 

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State 
which is accompanied by three reports adopted by the confer- 
ence of American nations recently in session at Washington, 
relating to the subject of international arbitration. The ratifi- 
cation of the treaties contemplated by these reports will con- 
stitute one of the happiest and most hopeful incidents in the 
history of the Western Hemisphere. 

(Signed) Benj. HARRISON. 1 

1 " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. IX, page 83. 


In his message to Congress of December 9, 1891, President 
Harrison said : 

" The arbitration treaty formulated by the International 
American Conference lapsed by reason of the failure to ex- 
change ratifications fully within the limit of time provided ; 
but several of the Governments concerned have expressed a 
desire to save this important result of the conference by an 
extension of the period. It is, in my judgment, incumbent 
upon the United States to conserve the influential initiative it 
has taken in this measure by ratifying the instrument and by 
advocating the proposed extension of the time for exchange. 
These views have been made known to the other signatories." 1 

The British House of Commons in 1893 unanimously passed 
a resolution requesting the government to co-operate with the 
United States in this movement. 

President Cleveland in his message of December 4, 1893, 

" By a concurrent resolution passed by the Senate February 
14, 1890, and by the House of Representatives on the 3d of 
April following, the President was requested to ' invite from 
time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any 
government with which the United States has or may have 
diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes 
arising between the two governments which cannot be adjusted 
by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and be 
peacefully adjusted by such means.' April 18, 1890, the In- 
ternational American Conference of Washington by resolution 
expressed the wish that all controversies between the republics 
of America and the nations of Europe might be settled by 
arbitration, and recommended that the government of each 
nation represented in that conference should communicate this 
wish to all friendly powers. A favorable response has been 
received from Great Britain in the shape of a resolution adopted 
by Parliament July 16 last, cordially sympathizing with the 
purpose in view and expressing the hope that Her Majesty's 
Government will lend ready co-operation to the Government 

1 " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. IX, page 188. 


of the United States upon the basis of the concurrent resolu- 
tion above quoted. 

" It affords me signal pleasure to lay this parliamentary reso- 
lution before the Congress and to express my sincere gratifica- 
tion that the sentiment of two great and kindred nations is thus 
authoritatively manifested in favor of the rational and peace- 
able settlement of international quarrels by honorable resort to 
arbitration." x 

Cleveland, in his message of December 2, 1895, reported to 
Congress the fact that the French Chambers had passed a 
resolution favoring the conclusion of a permanent treaty of 
arbitration between the two countries. 

President Cleveland sent to the Senate the following special 
message in regard to arbitration between the United States 
and Great Britain : 

Executive Mansion, January n, 1897. 
To the Senate : 

I transmit herewith a treaty of all matters in difference be- 
tween the United States and Great Britain. The provisions of 
the treaty are the result of long and patient deliberation, and 
represent concessions made by each party for the sake of 
agreement upon the general scheme. 

Though the result reached may not meet the views of the 
advocates of immediate, unlimited, and irrevocable arbitration 
of all international controversies, it is nevertheless confidently 
believed that the treaty cannot fail to be everywhere recognized 
as making a long step in the right direction and as embodying 
a practical working plan by which disputes between the two 
countries will reach a peaceful adjustment as matter of course 
and in ordinary routine. 

In the initiation of such an important movement it must be 
expected that some of its features will assume a tentative 
character looking to a further advance, and yet it is apparent 
that the treaty which has been formulated not only makes war 
between the parties to it a remote possibility, but precludes 
those fears and rumors of war which of themselves too often 
assume the proportions of national disaster. 

1 " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. IX, page 442. 


It is eminently fitting as well as fortunate that the attempts 
to accomplish results so beneficent should be initiated by- 
kindred peoples, speaking the same tongue and joined together 
by all the ties of common traditions, common institutions, and 
common aspirations. The experiment of substituting civilized 
methods for brute force as the means of settling international 
questions of right, will thus be tried under the happiest auspices. 
Its success ought not to be doubtful, and the fact that its ulti- 
mate ensuing benefits are not likely to be limited to the two 
countries immediately concerned should cause it to be pro- 
moted all the more eagerly. The examples set and the lesson 
furnished by the successful operation of this treaty are sure to 
be felt and taken to heart sooner or later by other nations, and 
will thus mark the beginning of a new epoch in civilization. 

Profoundly impressed as I am, therefore, by the promise of 
transcendent good which this treaty affords, I do not hesitate 
to accompany its transmission with an expression of my earnest 
hope that it may commend itself to the favorable consideration 
of the Senate. 

(Signed) Grover Cleveland. 1 

On June 5, 1895, the Lake Mohonk Conference on Inter- 
national Arbitration held its first session in the parlor of the 
Lake Mohonk Mountain House, at Lake Mohonk, New York, 
by invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Albert K. Smiley. John B. 
Garrett of Philadelphia was chairman. Among the speakers 
favoring international arbitration were Benjamin F. Trueblood, 
George Dana Boardman, Austin Abbott, Phillip C. Garrett, 
Edward Everett Hale, Robert Earl, Joshua L. Bailey, William 
H. Armour, Robert Treat Paine, George H. Emmott, James 
Wood, George S. Hale, Charles R. Skinner, Rufus M. Jones, 
B. Fay Mills, Merrill E. Gates, Marshall H. Bright, Gen. O. O. 
Howard, Aaron M. Powell, and Albert G. Lawson. 

The following resolution offered by Edward Everett Hale 
was adopted : 

" Resolved, That the President be requested to invite the 
governments of Austria, England, France, Germany, and 

1 " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. IX, pages 746, 747. 


Russia to join with the United States in the establishment of 
a Permanent Tribunal of the highest character, to which may- 
be submitted from time to time, for arbitration, questions aris- 
ing between those powers." l 

The New York State Bar Association in the year 1896 con- 
vened, discussed, and presented a plan for an international 
tribunal of arbitration. This plan was made purely from the 
lawyer's standpoint, and it very fairly embodies in its six sec- 
tions the general consensus of opinion among practitioners in 
regard to what such a nondescript court ought to be, but it 
fails to suggest or point out any necessary changes in inter- 
national law, whereby neutral nations can with propriety act as 
mediators. The plans proposed at The Hague Convention by 
both the American and British commissioners were somewhat 
of the same character as those of the New York State Bar As- 
sociation, and were amenable to the same criticism in respect 
to mediation. 

In the year 1898, however, Nicholas II, Czar of Russia, took 
up the subject and issued his invitation to the world's rulers to 
meet at The Hague in order " to put an end to incessant arma- 
ments, and to seek the means of warding off the calamities 
which are threatening the whole world." Russian statesmen 
complacently said that it would do as a plaything to keep the 
young czar's hands off practical affairs, while his own country- 
men generally looked upon the scheme as visionary. The 
English press declared that the idea did honor to the heart 
but not to the head of the generous youth, and that the con- 
ference could achieve nothing substantial. The Hague Con- 
ference, on the contrary, turned out to be a marvellous success. 
Lord Tennyson's dream in " Locksley Hall " of " the parliament 
of man, the federation of the world," seems to have been real- 
ized in the international legislation at The Hague, and in the 
organization of The Hague tribunal. The millennium, however, 
did not follow the work of this parliament and the organization 
of this tribunal. It was immediately followed by the war be- 
tween Great Britain and the South African republic ; later by 

1 Report of Lake "Mohonk Conference, 1895, page 52. 


the war upon Venezuela by Great Britain, Germany, and Italy; 
and in February, 1904, by the war between Russia and Japan. 
These three wars were begun in violation of the express terms 
of articles one and two of The Hague treaty. The war between 
Venezuela and the three European allies was brought to a 
sudden and honorable termination through the mediation of 
the United States. This mediation was authorized under the 
provisions of articles three and four of the treaty. President 
Kruger labored earnestly to have all matters in dispute between 
Great Britain and the Boers referred to arbitration, but these 
overtures were declined by Great Britain. 1 

The war between Russia and Japan was begun without 
either party making any overtures for arbitration. There 
were no circumstances which prevented a recourse to media- 
tion before these wars were begun ; and the four leading 
powers which took a leading part in securing The Hague 
treaty were the first to ignore and violate it. 

The following is the full text of The Hague treaty: 



Article I. — With a view to obviating, as far as possible, 
recourse to force in the relations between States, the Signa- 
tory Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific 
settlement of international differences. 2 


ARTICLE II. — In case of serious disagreement or conflict, 
before an appeal to arms, the Signatory Powers agree to 
have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good 
offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers. 

ARTICLE III. — Independently of this recourse, the Signa- 
tory Powers recommend that one or more Powers, strangers 

1 " The Boer Fight for Freedom," by Michael Davitt, page 46. 

2 Fifty-Sixth Congress, First Session, Senate Document 159. 


to the dispute, should, on their own initiative, and as far as 
circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation 
to the States at variance. 

Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good 
offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities. 

The exercise of this right can never be regarded by one or 
the other of the parties in conflict as an unfriendly act. 

ARTICLE IV. — The part of the mediator consists in rec- 
onciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of 
resentment which may have arisen between the States at 

Article V. — The functions of the mediator are at an end 
when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the 
dispute, or by the mediator himself, that the means of recon- 
ciliation proposed by him are not accepted. 

Article VI. — Good offices and mediation either at the 
request of the parties at variance, or on the initiative of Powers 
strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of 
advice and never having binding force. 

ARTICLE VII. — The acceptance of mediation cannot, un- 
less there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect 
of interrupting, delaying or hindering mobilization or other 
measures of preparation for war. 

If mediation occurs after the commencement of hostilities it 
causes no interruption to the military operations in progress, 
unless there be an agreement to the contrary. 

Article VIII. — The Signatory Powers are agreed in rec- 
ommending the application, when circumstances allow, of 
special mediation in the following form : 

In case of a serious difference endangering the peace, the 
States at variance choose respectively a Power, to whom they 
intrust the mission of entering into direct communication with 
the Power chosen on the other side, with the object of pre- 
venting the rupture of pacific relations. 

For the period of this mandate, the term of which, unless 
otherwise stipulated, cannot exceed thirty days, the States in 
conflict cease from all direct communication on the subject of 


the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to 
the mediating Powers, who must use their best efforts to 
settle it. 

In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, these 
Powers are charged with the joint task of taking advantage 
of any opportunity to restore peace. 


ARTICLE IX. — In differences of an international nature in- 
volving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a 
difference of opinion on points of fact, the Signatoiy Powers 
recommend that the parties, who have not been able to come 
to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should as far as cir- 
cumstances allow, institute an International Commission of 
Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these differences by eluci- 
dating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious 

ARTICLE X. — The International Commissions of Inquiry 
are constituted by special agreement between the parties in 

The Convention for an inquiry defines the facts to be ex- 
amined and the extent of the Commissioners' powers. 

It settles the procedure. 

On the inquiry both sides must be heard. 

The form and the periods to be observed, if not stated 
in the inquiry Convention, are decided by the Commission 

ARTICLE XI. — The International Commissions of Inquiry 
are formed, unless otherwise stipulated, in the manner fixed 
by Article XXXII of the present convention. 

ARTICLE XII. — The powers in dispute engage to supply the 
International Commission of Inquiry, as fully as they may 
think possible, with all means and facilities necessary to enable 
it to be completely acquainted with and to accurately under- 
stand the facts in question. 


ARTICLE XIII. — The International Commission of Inquiry- 
communicates its report to the conflicting Powers, signed by 
all the members of the Commission. 

Article XIV. — The report of the International Commis- 
sion of Inquiry is limited to a statement of facts, and has in no 
way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves the con- 
flicting Powers entire freedom as to the effect to be given to 
this statement. 


Chapter i. — On the System of Arbitration. 

ARTICLE XV. — International arbitration has for its object 
the settlement of differences between States by judges of their 
own choice, and on the basis of respect for law. 

ARTICLE XVI. — In questions of a legal nature, and espe- 
cially in the interpretation or application of International Con- 
ventions, arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as 
the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, 
means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to 

ARTICLE XVII. — The arbitration convention is concluded 
for questions already existing or for questions which may 
arise eventually. 

It may embrace any dispute or only disputes of a certain 

Article XVIII. — The Arbitration Convention implies the 
engagement to submit loyally to the Award. 

Article XIX. — Independently of general or private 
Treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obliga- 
tory on the Signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to them- 
selves the right of concluding, either before the ratification of 
the present Act or later, new Agreements, general or private, 
with a view to extending obligatory arbitration to all cases 
which they may consider it possible to submit to it. 


Chapter II. — On the Permanent Court of Arbitration. 

ARTICLE XX. — With the object of facilitating an immedi- 
ate recourse to arbitration for international differences, which 
it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Signatory 
Powers undertake to organize a permanent Court of Arbitra- 
tion, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise 
stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the Rules of Pro- 
cedure inserted in the present Convention. 

ARTICLE XXI. — The permanent Court shall be competent 
for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a 
special Tribunal. 

ARTICLE XXII. — An International Bureau, established at 
The Hague, serves as record office for the Court. 

This Bureau is the channel for communication relative to 
the meetings of the Court. 

It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the ad- 
ministrative business. 

The Signatory Powers undertake to communicate to the 
International Bureau at The Hague a duly certified copy of 
any conditions of arbitration arrived at between them, and of 
any award concerning them delivered by special Tribunals. 

They undertake also to communicate to the Bureau the 
Laws, Regulations, and documents eventually showing the ex- 
ecution of the awards given by the Court. 

ARTICLE XXIII. — Within the three months following its 
ratification of the present Act, each Signatory Power shall 
select four persons at the most, of known competency in ques- 
tions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and 
disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrators. 

The persons thus selected shall be inscribed, as members of 
the Court, in a list which shall be notified by the Bureau to all 
the Signatory Powers. 

Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators is brought by the 
Bureau to the knowledge of the Signatory Powers. 

Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in common 
of one or more Members. 



The same person can be selected by different Powers. 

The Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six 
years. Their appointments can be renewed. 

In case of the death or retirement of a member of the 
Court, his place shall be filled in accordance with the method 
of his appointment. 

Article XXIV. — When the Signatory Powers desire to 
have recourse to the Permanent Court for the settlement of a 
difference that has arisen between them, the Arbitrators called 
upon to form the competent Tribunal to decide this difference, 
must be chosen from the general list of members of the Court. 

Failing the direct agreement of the parties on the composi- 
tion of the Arbitration Tribunal, the following course shall be 
pursued : 

Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these together 
choose an Umpire. 

If the votes are equal, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted 
to a third Power, selected by the parties by common accord. 

If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject, each party 
selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is 
made in concert by the Powers thus selected. 

The Tribunal being thus composed, the parties notify to the 
Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court and 
the names of the Arbitrators. 

The Tribunal of Arbitration assembles on the date fixed by 
the parties. 

The Members of the Court, in the discharge of their duties 
and out of their own country, enjoy diplomatic privileges and 

ARTICLE XXV. — The Tribunal of Arbitration has its or- 
dinary seat at The Hague. 

Except in cases of necessity, the place of session can only 
be altered by the Tribunal with the assent of the parties. 

Article XXVI. — The International Bureau at The Hague 
is authorized to place its premises and its staff at the disposal 
of the Signatory Powers for the operations of any special 
Board of Arbitration. 


The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may, within the 
conditions laid down in the Regulations, be extended to dis- 
putes between non-Signatory Powers, or between Signatory 
Powers and non-Signatory Powers, if the parties are agreed on 
recourse to this tribunal. 

Article XXVII. — The Signatory Powers consider it their 
duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two 
or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent 
Court is open to them. 

Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the 
conflicting parties of the provisions of the present Convention, 
and the advice given to them, in the highest interests of peace, 
to have recourse to the Permanent Court, can only be regarded 
as friendly actions. 

ARTICLE XXVIII. — A Permanent Administrative Council, 
composed of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Signatory 
Powers accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland Min- 
ister for Foreign Affairs, who will act as President, shall be in- 
stituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of 
the present Act by at least nine Powers. 

This Council will be charged with the establishment and 
organization of the International Bureau, which will be under 
its direction and control. 

It will notify to the Powers the Constitution of the Court 
and will provide for its installation. 

It will settle its Rules of Procedure and all other necessary 

It will decide all questions of administration which may 
arise with regard to the operations of the Court. 

It will have entire control over the appointment, suspension 
or dismissal of the officials and employes of the Bureau. 

It will fix the payments and salaries, and control the general 

At meetings duly summoned the presence of five members 
is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. 
The decisions are taken by a majority of votes. 

The Council communicates to the Signatory Powers without 


delay the Regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with 
an annual report on the labours of the Court, the working of 
the administration and the expenses. 

Article XXIX. — The expenses of the Bureau shall be 
borne by the Signatory Powers in the proportion fixed for the 
International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union. 

Chapter in. — On Arbitral Procedure. 

ARTICLE XXX. — With a view to encourage the develop- 
ment of arbitration, the Signatory Powers have agreed on the 
following Rules which shall be applicable to arbitral proced- 
ure, unless other rules have been agreed on by the parties. 

Article XXXI. — The Powers who have recourse to arbi- 
tration sign a special Act (" Compromis"), in which the sub- 
ject of the difference is clearly defined, as well as the extent 
of the Arbitrators' powers. This Act implies the undertaking 
of the parties to submit loyally to the award. 

Article XXXII. — The duties of Arbitrator may be con- 
ferred on one Arbitrator alone or on several Arbitrators selected 
by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the 
members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established 
by the present Act. 

Failing the constitution of the Tribunal by direct agreement 
between the parties, the following course shall be pursued : 

Each party appoints two arbitrators, and these latter to- 
gether choose an Umpire. 

In case of equal voting, the choice of the Umpire is in- 
trusted to a third Power, selected by the parties by common 

If no agreement is arrived at on this subject, each party 
selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made 
in concert by the Powers thus selected. 

Article XXXIII. — When a Sovereign or the Chief of a 
State is chosen as Arbitrator, the arbitral procedure is settled 
by him. 

Article XXXIV. — The Umpire is by right President of 
the Tribunal. 


When the Tribunal does not include an Umpire, it appoints 
its own President. 

Article XXXV. — In case of the death, retirement, or 
disability from any cause of one of the Arbitrators, his place 
shall be filled in accordance with the method of his appoint- 

ARTICLE XXXVI. — The Tribunal's place of session is 
selected by the parties. Failing this selection the Tribunal 
sits at The Hague. 

The place thus fixed cannot, except in case of necessity, be 
changed by the Tribunal without the assent of the parties. 

ARTICLE XXXVII. — The parties have the right to appoint 
delegates or special agents to attend the Tribunal, for the pur- 
pose of serving as intermediaries between them and the 

They are further authorized to retain, for the defence of 
their rights and interests before the Tribunal, counsel or 
advocates appointed by them for this purpose. 

ARTICLE XXXVIII. — The Tribunal decides on the choice of 
languages to be used by itself, and to be authorized for use 
before it. 

Article XXXIX. — As a general rule the arbitral procedure 
comprises two distinct phases, — preliminary examination and 

Preliminary examination consists in the communication by 
the respective. agents to the members of the Tribunal and to 
the opposite party of all printed or written Acts, and of all 
documents containing the arguments invoked in the case. 
This communication shall be made in the form and within 
the periods fixed by the Tribunal in accordance with Article 

Discussion consists in the oral development before the 
Tribunal of the arguments of the parties. 

Article XL. — Every document produced by one party 
must be communicated to the other party. 

Article XLI. — The discussions are under the direction 
of the President. 


They are only public if it be so decided by the Tribunal, 
with the assent of the parties. 

They are recorded in the proch-verbaux drawn up by the 
Secretaries appointed by the President. These proch-ver- 
baux alone have an authentic character. 

ARTICLE XLII. — When the preliminary examination is con- 
cluded, the Tribunal has the right to refuse discussion of all 
fresh Acts or documents which one party may desire to sub- 
mit to it without the consent of the other party. 

ARTICLE XLIII. — The Tribunal is free to take into con- 
sideration fresh Acts or documents to which its attention may 
be drawn by the agents or counsel of the parties. 

In this case the tribunal has the right to require the pro- 
duction of these Acts or documents, but is obliged to make 
them known to the opposite party. 

Article XLIV. — The Tribunal can, besides, require from 
the agents of the parties the production of all Acts, and can 
demand all necessary explanations. In case of refusal, the 
Tribunal takes note of it. 

ARTICLE XLV. — The agents and counsel of the parties are 
authorized to present orally to the Tribunal all the arguments 
they may think expedient in defence of their case. 

ARTICLE XLVI. — They have the right to raise objections 
and points. The decisions of the Tribunal on those points 
are final, and cannot form the subject of any subsequent 

ARTICLE XL VII. — The members of the Tribunal have the 
right to put questions to the agents and counsel of the parties, 
t and to demand explanations from them on doubtful points. 

Neither the questions put nor the remarks made by mem- 
bers of the Tribunal during the discussions can be regarded as 
an expression of opinion by the Tribunal in general, or by its 
members in particular. 

ARTICLE XLVIII. — The Tribunal is authorized to declare 
its competence in interpreting the " Compromis " as well as 
the other Treaties which may be invoked in the case, and in 
applying the principles of international law. 



ARTICLE XLIX. — The Tribunal has the right to issue 
Rules of Procedure for the conduct of the case, to decide the 
forms and periods within which each party must conclude its 
arguments, and to arrange all the formalities required for deal- 
ing with the evidence. 

ARTICLE L. — When the agents and counsel of the parties 
have submitted all explanations and evidence in support of 
their case, the President pronounces the discussion closed. 

ARTICLE LI. — The deliberations of the Tribunal take place 
in private. Every decision is taken by a majority of members 
of the Tribunal. 

The refusal of a member to vote must be recorded in the 
proch verbal. 

Article LII. — The award, given by a majority of votes, 
is accompanied by a statement of reasons. It is drawn up in 
writing and signed by each member of the Tribunal. 

Those members who are in the minority may record their 
dissent when signing. 

ARTICLE LIII. — The award is read out at a public meeting 
of the Tribunal, the agents and counsel of the parties being 
present, or duly summoned to attend. 

ARTICLE LIV. — The award, duly pronounced and notified 
to the agents of the parties at variance, puts an end to the 
dispute definitely and without appeal. 

ARTICLE LV. — The parties can reserve in the " Com- 
promis " the right to demand the revision of the award. 

In this case, and unless there be an agreement to the con- 
trary, the demand must be addressed to the Tribunal which 
pronounced the award. It can only be made on the ground 
of the discovery of some new fact calculated to exercise a 
decisive influence on the award, and which, at the time the 
discussion was closed, was unknown to the Tribunal and to 
the party demanding the revision. 

Proceedings for revision can only be instituted by a decision 
of the Tribunal expressly recording the existence of the new 
fact, recognizing in it the character described in the foregoing 
paragraph, and declaring the demand admissible on this ground. 


The " Compromis " fixes the period within which the de- 
mand for revision must be made. 

ARTICLE LVI. — The award is only binding on the parties 
who concluded the " Compromis." 

When there is a question of interpreting a Convention to 
which Powers other than those concerned in the dispute are 
parties, the latter notify to the former the " Compromis " they 
have concluded. Each of these Powers has the right to in- 
tervene in the case. If one or more of them avail themselves 
of this right, the interpretation contained in the award is 
equally binding on them. 

Article LVII. — Each party pays its own expenses and an 
equal share of those of the Tribunal. 


Article LVIII. — The present Convention shall be ratified 
as speedily as possible. 

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague. 

A proch-verbal shall be drawn up recording the receipt 
of each ratification, and a copy duly certified shall be sent, 
through the diplomatic channel, to all the Powers who were 
represented at the International Peace Conference at The 

ARTICLE LIX. — The non-Signatory Powers who were rep- 
resented at the International Peace Conference can adhere to 
the present Convention. For this purpose they must make 
known their adhesion to the Contracting Powers by a written 
notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and 
communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers. 

Article LX. — The conditions on which the Powers who 
were not represented at the International Peace Conference 
can adhere to the present Convention shall form the subject 
of a subsequent Agreement among the Contracting Powers. 

Article LXI. — In the event of one of the High Contract- 
ing Parties denouncing the present Convention, this denuncia- 
tion would not take effect until a year after its notification 


made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and by it 
communicated at once to all the other Contracting Powers. 

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power. 

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the 
present Convention and affixed their seals to it. 

Done at The Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, 
which shall remain in the archives of the Netherlands Govern- 
ment, and copies of it, duly certified, be sent through the 
diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers. 

And whereas the said Convention was signed by the Pleni- 
potentiaries of the United States of America under reserva- 
tion of the following declaration: 

" Nothing contained in this convention shall be so con- 
strued as to require the United States of America to depart 
from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering 
with, or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or 
internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything 
contained in the said convention be construed to imply a re- 
linquishment by the United States of America of its tradi- 
tional attitude toward purely American questions; " 

And whereas the said Convention was duly ratified by the 
Government of the United States of America, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by the Govern- 
ments of the other Powers aforesaid with the exception of 
China and Turkey; 

And whereas, in pursuance of the stipulations of Article 
LVIII of the Convention the ratifications of the said Conven- 
tion were deposited at The Hague on the 4th day of Septem- 
ber, 1900, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Governments of the 
United States of America, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bel- 
gium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, the 
Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, 
Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria; on the 6th day of 
October, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of 
Japan; on the 16th day of October, 1900, by the Plenipo- 


tentiary of the Government of Montenegro ; on the 29th day 
of December, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government 
of Switzerland ; on the 4th day of April, 1901, by the Pleni- 
potentiary of the Government of Greece; on the 17th day 
of April, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of 
Mexico; on the nth day of May, 1901, by the Plenipoten- 
tiary of the Government of Servia; and on the 12th day of 
July, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, 
President of the United States of America, have caused the 
said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same 
and every clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with 
good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof, sub- 
ject to the reserve made in the aforesaid declaration of the 
Plenipotentiaries of the United States. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this first day of November 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and one, 
and of the Independence of the United States, the one hun- 
dred and twenty-sixth. 

Theodore Roosevelt. 

By the President 
John Hay, 
Secretary of State? 

The Hague Convention set aside the principles of inter- 
national law on the subject of intervention. Until this treaty 
changed the rule it became a matter of delicacy and difficulty 
for a third power to take any steps looking to a peaceful 
settlement of difficulties between two belligerents. The 
parties to this treaty, which now practically embraces all the 
governments of the world, " agree to use their best efforts to 
insure the pacific settlement of international differences." 
They agree to have " recourse as far as circumstances will 
allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly 
1 From papers in the State Department. 


Powers." They agree that one or more Powers strangers 
to the dispute should, on their own initiative and as far as 
circumstances may allow, offer their good offices for media- 
tion to the States at variance. Powers strangers to the dis- 
pute have the right to offer good offices or mediation even 
during the course of hostilities. The exercise of this right 
can never be regarded by one or the other of the parties in 
conflict as an unfriendly act. 

The government of the United States in the latter part of 
the year 1902, and in the early part of 1903, became engaged 
in correspondence with Great Britain, Germany, and Italy on 
behalf of Venezuela under the provisions of these mediation 
rights conferred by The Hague treaty. A popular misap- 
prehension exists in regard to the character of this interfer- 
ence by the United States in this controversy. The erroneous 
supposition is that the correspondence is based on our asser- 
tion of the Monroe Doctrine. The correspondence could not 
properly reach this stage until the German government should 
declare its purpose to permanently occupy Venezuelan terri- 
tory, or until it should enter upon such occupation which it 
evidently intended to be permanent. This would give this 
government ample time to deliberate upon the policy and 
propriety of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine at all or not, as 
well as to prepare and put itself in readiness to effectually 
enforce it. A period of deliberation and preparation by this 
government will enable it to take an opportune time to em- 
ploy offensive measures to enforce our foreign policy. 

The statutes of limitation do not bar the rights of the 
government. Negligence or laches is not imputable to it. 
" Nullum tempus occurrit regi " is the time-worn maxim per- 
taining to the rights of the government. Hence a delay by 
the government in the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine 
will not operate to its prejudice. It can postpone action, not 
only for the sake of preparation, but for the purpose of strik- 
ing the offending Power at an opportune time and in the 
moment of its greatest weakness. 

The completion of the Panama Canal would likely take pre- 


cedence of any stupendous undertaking by this government to 
redress any invasions of its foreign policy. The first and pre- 
dominant purpose of the government should be to construct 
the canal across the Isthmus, and in the meantime postpone 
all other matters of foreign policy which are not especially 
demanding immediate attention. 

The United States was represented at The Hague Confer- 
ence by Andrew D. White, Seth Low, Stanford Newell, and 
Captains Alfred T. Mahan and William Crozier. Our repre- 
sentatives brought to the attention of that body the traditional 
policies against entangling alliances by this government in 
European affairs, and in support of our foreign policy, known 
as the Monroe Doctrine. When they signed the treaty they 
added the following words in explanation of the conditions 
under which they signed that instrument for the United States : 
" Under reserve of the declaration made at the plenary sitting 
of the Conference on the 25th of July, 1899." These reserva- 
tions were stated at length over the signatures of President 
Roosevelt and Secretary John Hay, as set out in the preceding 
text of the treaty. The United States, therefore, among other 
things, both on the floor of The Hague Convention, and in 
the ratification of the treaty itself, expressly announced its 
adherence to the Monroe Doctrine, and all the Signatory 
Powers joined in the treaty with the express knowledge and 
understanding that the United States, by becoming a party to 
that treaty, did not waive any of its rights to adhere to its 
traditional foreign policy. 

The other Signatory Powers, however, while incidentally 
recognizing the Monroe Doctrine, are not in the attitude of 
having ratified it nor of having adopted it as a principle of 
international law. It does have the effect of notice to them of 
this traditional policy, the continued existence of which had 
been more or less questioned by European governments. 

The question arises, what shall be the lex non scripta of The 
Hague Tribunal? Great Britain and the United States have 
considered that the law of nations is adopted in its full extent 
by the common law, as a part of the law of the land. Now 


that practically all the nations of the earth are supporters of 
The Hague Tribunal, what shall be its unwritten law, since few, 
if any, of the other nations have adopted the common law ? 
Blackstone says: 

" The law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by nat- 
ural reason, and established by universal consent among the 
civilized inhabitants of the world ; in order to decide all dis- 
putes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure 
the observance of justice and good faith, in that intercourse 
which must frequently occur between two or more inde- 
pendent states, and the individuals belonging to each. This 
general law is founded upon this principle, that different na- 
tions ought in time of peace to do one another all the good 
they can, and in time of war as little harm as possible, without 
prejudice to their own real interests. And, as none of these 
states will allow a superiority in the others, therefore neither 
can dictate nor prescribe the rules of this law to the rest ; but 
such rules must necessarily result from those principles of 
natural justice in which all the learned of every nation agree; 
or they depend upon mutual compacts or treaties between 
the respective communities; in the construction of which there 
is also no judge to resort to, but the law of nature and reason, 
being the only one in which all the contracting parties are 
equally conversant and to which they are equally subject." 1 

The terms " international law " and " the law of nations " are 
synonymous, but the former is more modern. 
Lord Coleridge said : 

" Strictly speaking, 'international law' is an inexact expres- 
sion, and it is apt to mislead if its inexactness is not kept in 
mind. Law implies a lawgiver and a tribunal capable of 
enforcing it and coercing its transgressors. But there is 
no common lawgiver to sovereign states; and no tribunal 
has the power to bind them by decrees or coerce them 
if they transgress. The law of nations is that collection of 
usages which civilized states have agreed to observe in their 
dealings with one another. What these usages are, whether a 

1 Blackstone's Commentaries, Book IV, Chapter V, page 67. 


particular one has or has not been agreed to, must be matter 
of evidence. Treaties and acts of state are but evidence of 
the agreement of nations, and do not, in this country at least, 
per se bind the tribunals. Neither, certainly does a consensus 
of jurists; but it is evidence of the agreement of nations on 
international points; and on such points, when they arise, the 
English courts give effect, as part of English law, to such 
agreement." * 

A contrary view has been expressed, for Lord Russell, in his 
speech to the American Bar Association in 1896, said that the 
view expressed by Lord Coleridge is based on too narrow a 
definition of law, a definition which " relies too much on force 
as the governing idea. If the development of law is histor- 
ically considered, it will be found to exclude that body of 
customary law which in early stages of society precedes law 
which assumes definitely the character of positive command 
coupled with punitive sanctions. . . . As government becomes 
more frankly democratic, . . . laws bear less and less the char- 
acter of commands imposed by a coercive authority, and ac- 
quire more and more the character of customary law founded 
on consent. ... I claim, then, that the aggregate of the 
rules to which nations have agreed to conform in their con- 
duct towards one another is properly to be designated ' inter- 
national law.' " 2 

The Hague Tribunal is based on the idea of justice, and not 
of force, as the governing idea. Weak nations are to have 
their rights administered by the same rules and upon the 
same principles as powerful nations. The existence of The 
Hague Tribunal necessarily implies that it will have a lex non 
scripta of its own. This law, which Blackstone says is based 
" on the law of nature and reason," is bound to receive judicial 
constructions from time to time on the great variety of mat- 
ters which will come before it for judicial determination. If 
Blackstone is correct concerning this " law of nature and reason," 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XVI, 
pages 1 124, 1 125, note 3. 

2 Ibid. 


it is evident that the lex non scripta of The Hague Tribunal's 
administration of justice will be in general conformity to the 
principles of the common law and the golden rule of Con- 
fucius. This unwritten law must necessarily define some 
existing causes of war as unjustifiable. 

The acquisition of territory for the mere purposes of con- 
quest would doubtless be one, if indeed this is not already 
fairly implied by the institution of this tribunal. To this ex- 
tent The Hague Tribunal would be a powerful auxiliary to the 
maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine. The lex non scripta of 
this tribunal must necessarily take quite a growth in matters 
pertaining to the execution of its judgments and decrees. Not 
one judgment out of a hundred which is rendered by the or- 
dinary tribunals of the country, is collectible, and besides there 
is a very large per centum of claims which are never reduced 
to judgment, because of the impossibility of collection. The 
law of collectibility or non-collectibility of the judgments and 
decrees of this tribunal will evidently come up for adjudication 
in a manner in which some rules must be established. These 
rules, like the rules governing the execution of judgments at 
law and the enforcement of decrees in equity, must all be in 
conformity to a wise and humane public policy. Public policy 
forbids the judgment creditor to levy his execution on the fire 
engines of the city or the city hall, or any other property 
needful in the administration of the public affairs of the city 
and the public buildings of the county. 

It forbids the garnisheeing of the wages and salaries of all 
municipal, county, State or federal officers, whether in the civil 
or military employ of the government. Public policy de- 
mands that the civil and military offices of the government, as 
well as its property used for governmental purposes, shall not 
be subject to execution or sequestration, because it might par- 
alyze the arm of the government. 

Every tribunal should possess the ability to enforce its own 
judgments, decrees, and mandates as other tribunals which de- 
cide upon the rights, liberties, and property of individuals. 
The Hague Tribunal should not hand over its judgment to the 


creditor nation, to be enforced through military coercion. A 
public policy is involved which would not only deny this 
right, but which would also deny the judgment creditor nation 
the right to paralyze or destroy the functions of government 
of the debtor. 

The doctrine of trusts comprises a very large part of the un- 
written law applicable to the affairs of men. The trusts here 
referred to are not those gigantic combinations of capital and 
enterprise which go under that name. The trusts under con- 
sideration are fiduciary relations to persons and property, and 
constructive trusts which arise upon special facts which fasten 
a fiduciary relation upon a party in respect to certain property 
or persons. A doctrine of trusts of an ethnical character as 
varied and technical will grow up under the shadow of The 
Hague Tribunal, as has already grown up among the affairs of 
men. This doctrine will point out when and under what cir- 
cumstances resort should be had to the arbitrament of the 
sword. Our ancestors who landed on this continent from the 
" Mayflower," and other colonists as well, justified their expul- 
sion of the Indian from his lands upon the idea that these 
lands were given in trust to mankind to promote his highest 
usefulness and development, and that the Indian by failing to 
improve them had betrayed that trust. Providence seems to 
have smiled with approbation upon the seeming rapacity of 
our ancestors, judging from the changes which have been 
wrought in the condition of things on this continent. Since 
the aboriginal trustees have been discredited and removed, it 
becomes a question of serious moment, whether or not the ad- 
ministration of affairs in the Western Hemisphere should be 
turned over again in whole or part to the discredited and re- 
moved trustees, as is the case among the revolutionary Latin- 
American republics. 

Providence is in like manner removing another class of in- 
competent trustees from the continent of Africa, which is more 
incompetent than the Indian for the purposes of civilization 
and civil government. The new regime may exclude these 
defaulting trustees from any important position in the adminis- 


tration of the affairs of government, not only in the United 
States, but throughout the Western Hemisphere. A knowl- 
edge of conditions in the Latin-American republics where the 
white, the Indian, and African races are jointly administering 
affairs, leads up to the conclusion that the three races do not 
strive as one people to accomplish one common purpose. 
The three races do not co-ordinate in the administration of 
affairs. The republics become the victims of a disease which 
among individuals, physicians call locomotor ataxia. The un- 
written law of The Hague Tribunal may some day be able to 
furnish the body politic with a specific remedy for political 
locomotor ataxia. When we read God in history, throughout 
the centuries since the declaration was made " I come not to 
bring peace, but a sword," we see many proofs of its truthful- 
ness. The sword still maintains a prominent place in inter- 
national law; let us hope, however, that The Hague Tribunal 
will reduce its operations to a minimum. It seems inevitable 
that the international lex non scripta must become in substance 
the same as the unwritten law of public corporations. The 
definition of a corporation as given by the text-writers is so 
nearly that of a State, or a nation, that the definition of the 
one might well pass for a definition of the other. Corpora- 
tions, nations, and States are collections of individuals into 
bodies politic under a special denomination, having perpetual 
succession under an artificial form and vested by the policy 
of the law with a capacity of acting in several respects as an 
individual. Bouvier says that " nations or States are denom- 
inated by publicists bodies politic, and are said to have their 
affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve in common. 
They thus become as moral persons, having an understand- 
ing and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of 
obligations and laws. In this extensive sense, the United 
States may be termed a corporation, and so may each State 
singly." 1 The common law of nations is therefore destined to 
be in substance, so far as applicable, the same as the common 
law of corporations. By far the most important part of The 

1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. I, pages 318, 319. 


Hague treaty is the mediation provision. The court may 
perish, but mediation will not perish. It will remain to save 
the nations from the calamities of war. 

The Russian plan which was presented to The Hague Con- 
vention, through her commissioners Staal, Martens, and Basily, 
among other things embodied the mediation feature substan- 
tially as it was adopted. Martens is the great Russian pub- 
licist who presided at the Venezuelan boundary court of 
arbitration, which settled the boundary dispute between 
Great Britain and Venezuela. Russia carried off nearly all 
the honors of The Hague treaty. Mediation will settle 
more great controversies than the court. The court will at 
last be the instrumentality of the mediator when other peace- 
ful means of settlement fail, or where some details of a media- 
tion settlement are to be worked out. As time rolls on and 
as mediation crystallizes in the hearts of men, and around 
thrones, capitals, and sanctuaries, war will not be attempted 
until after mediation shall have failed. Any nation which is 
arrogant enough to undertake to fight not only the enemy, but 
also the mediator, as formerly, will have to fight the public 
opinion, and perhaps the armies, of the civilized world, and the 
revolutionary Latin-American republics, which are such a 
menace to our foreign policy, will gladly take shelter under 

Incidentally, The Hague treaty becomes a tower of strength 
to the United States in maintaining the Monroe Doctrine. 
Mediation by the terms of this treaty is not limited to any 
class of controversies, while arbitration is limited to differences 
" involving neither honor nor vital interests." 

The mediator and the tribunal will leave but few cases to 
fall within the purview of these exceptions. Civilized nations 
will have but few controversies involving too much honor, or 
interests too vital, to submit to the tribunal for adjudication 
after a settlement has failed through the instrumentality of 



On October 22, 1901, an international conference of the 
American States met in the City of Mexico, where it remained 
in session until January 31, 1902. This was the second meet- 
ing of this character. 

On January 15, fifteen States, including the United States, 
signed the following protocol of adherence to the conventions 
of The Hague. 

Whereas: The delegates to the international conference of 
the American states, believing that public sentiment in the re- 
publics represented by them is constantly growing in the direc- 
tion of heartily favoring the widest application of the principles 
of arbitration ; that the American republics controlled alike 
by the principles and responsibilities of popular government 
and bound together with the increasing mutual interests, can, 
by their own actions, maintain peace on the continent, and 
that permanent peace between them will be the forerunner 
and harbinger of their national development and of the happi- 
ness and commercial greatness of their peoples: 

They have, therefore, agreed upon the following 


ARTICLE I. — The American republics, represented at the 
international conference of American states in Mexico which 
have not subscribed to the three conventions signed at The 
Hague on the 29th of July, 1899, hereby recognize as a part 
of public international American law the principles set forth 

1 Report of Second International Conference of American States, Senate 
Document 330, pages 36, 39. 


ARTICLE II. — With respect to the conventions which are 
of an open character, the adherence thereto will be communi- 
cated to the government of Holland through diplomatic 
channels by the respective governments, upon the ratification 

Article III. — The wide general convenience being so 
clearly apparent that would be secured by confiding the solu- 
tion of differences to be submitted to arbitration to the juris- 
diction of a tribunal of so high a character as that of the 
arbitration court at The Hague, and, also, that the American 
nations, not now signatory to the conventions creating that 
beneficent institution, can become adherents thereto by virtue 
of an accepted and recognized right; and further, taking into 
consideration the offer of the government of the United States 
of America and the United States of Mexico, the conference 
hereby confers upon said governments the authority to nego- 
tiate with the other signatory Powers to the convention for 
peaceful adjustment of international differences, for the adhe- 
rence thereto of the American nations so requesting and not 
now signatory to said convention. 

Article IV. — In order that the widest and most unre- 
stricted application of the principle of just arbitration may be 
satisfactorily and definitely brought about at the earliest pos- 
sible day, and, to the end that the most advanced and mu- 
tually advantageous form in which the said principle can be 
expressed in a convention to be signed between the American 
republics may be fully ascertained, the president of Mexico 
is hereby most respectfully requested to ascertain by careful 
investigation the views of the different governments repre- 
sented in the conference regarding the most advanced form 
in which a general arbitration convention could be drawn that 
would meet with the approval and secure the final ratification 
of all the countries in the conference, and after the conclusion 
of this inquiry, to prepare a plan for such a general convention 
as would apparently meet the wishes of all the republics ; and, 
if possible, arrange for a series of protocols to carry the plan 
into execution ; or, if this should be found to be impracticable, 
then to present the correspondence with a report to the next 


On January 29, 1902, ten of the republics signed the follow- 
ing treaty on compulsory arbitration : 

ARTICLE I. — The High Contracting Parties obligate them- 
selves to submit to the decision of arbitrators all controversies 
that exist, or may arise, among them and which diplomacy 
cannot settle, provided that in the exclusive judgment of any 
of the interested nations said controversies do not affect either 
the independence or the national honor. 

Article II. — Independence or national honor shall not be 
considered as involved in controversies with regard to diplo- 
matic privileges, boundaries, rights of navigation and validity, 
construction and enforcement of treaties. 

ARTICLE III. — By virtue of the power established in Article 
XXVI, the High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the 
decision of the permanent court of arbitration, created by 
such convention, all the controversies referred to in the present 
treaty, unless either of the parties prefers the establishment of 
a special tribunal. 

In the event that the High Contracting Parties should sub- 
mit to the jurisdiction of the permanent court of The Hague, 
they accept the precepts of said convention, both with respect 
to the organization of the tribunal and as to its procedure. 

ARTICLE IV. — Whenever a special tribunal should be or- 
ganized on any account, whether it is so desired by any of the 
parties, or because the permanent court of arbitration of The 
Hague should not be open to them, the procedure to be fol- 
lowed shall be established at the time the arbitration agree- 
ment is signed. The court shall determine the date and place 
of its sessions and the language to be used, and shall, in every 
case be invested with the authority to decide all questions 
relating to its own jurisdiction and even those referring to 
the procedure of points not considered in the arbitration 

Article V. — If upon organizing a special tribunal the 
High Contracting Parties should not agree upon the designa- 
tion of the arbitrator, the tribunal shall consist of three judges. 
Each state shall appoint an arbitrator who will designate an 
umpire. Should the arbitrators fail to agree on this appointee, 


it shall be made by the government of a third state, to be 
designated by the arbitrators appointed by the parties. 

If no agreement is reached with regard to this last appoint- 
ment, each of the parties shall name a different Power and the 
election of the third arbitrator shall be made by the two 
Powers so designated. 

ARTICLE VI. —The High Contracting Parties hereby stip- 
ulate that, in case of a serious disagreement or conflict be- 
tween two or more of them, which may render war imminent, 
they will have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to 
the good offices or the mediation of one or more friendly 

Article VII. — Independently of this recourse, the High 
Contracting Parties consider it useful, that one or more Powers, 
strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative, as far 
as circumstances will allow, offer their good offices or media- 
tion to the states at variance. 

The right to offer the good offices or mediation belongs to 
Powers who are strangers to the conflict even during the course 
of hostilities. 

The exercise of this right shall never be regarded by either 
of the contending parties as an unfriendly act. 

ARTICLE VIII. — The part of the mediator consists in 
reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings 
of resentment which may have arisen between the states at 

ARTICLE IX. — The functions of the mediator are at an end 
when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the 
dispute or by the mediator himself, that the methods of con- 
ciliation proposed by him are not accepted. 

Article X. — Good offices and mediation, whether at the 
request of the parties at variance, or upon the initiative of 
Powers who are strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the 
character of advice, and never have binding force. 

Article XI. — The acceptance of mediation cannot, unless 
there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of in- 
terrupting, delaying or hindering mobilization, or other meas- 
ures of preparation for war. If mediation occurs after the 
commencement of hostilities, it causes no interruption to the 



military operations in progress unless there be an agreement 
to the contrary. 

Article XII. — In case of a serious difference endangering 
peace, and whenever the interested Powers cannot agree in elect- 
ing or accepting as mediator a friendly Power, it is to be re- 
commended to the states in dispute the election of a Power to 
whom they shall respectively entrust the mission of entering 
into direct negotiation with the Power elected by the other in- 
terested party, with the object of preventing the rupture of 
pacific relations. 

For the period of this mandate, the term of which, unless 
otherwise stipulated, cannot exceed thirty days, the contending 
Powers shall cease all direct communication on the subject of 
the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to the 
mediating Powers. 

If these friendly Powers do not succeed in agreeing on a 
solution that would be acceptable to those in conflict, they 
shall designate a third that is to act as mediator. This third 
Power, in case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, shall, 
at all times, be charged with the task of taking advantage of 
any opportunity to restore peace. 

ARTICLE XIII. — In controversies of an international nature 
arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the sig- 
natory Powers consider it useful that the parties who have not 
been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, 
should, so far as circumstances allow, institute an interna- 
tional commission of inquiry, to facilitate a solution of those 
differences, elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and 
conscientious investigation. 

Article XIV. — The international commissions of inquiry 
are constituted by special agreement. The agreement defines 
the facts to be examined, and the extent of the commissioner's 
powers, and settles the procedure to which they must limit 
themselves. On the inquiry both sides shall be heard, and the 
form and periods to be observed, if not stipulated by the 
agreements, shall be determined by the commission itself. 

Article XV. — The international commissions of inquiry 
are constituted, unless otherwise stipulated, in the same man- 
ner as the tribunal of arbitration. 


ARTICLE XVI. — The Powers in dispute engage to supply 
the international commission of inquiry, as fully as they may 
deem possible, with all means and facilities necessary to enable 
it to be completely acquainted with and to accurately under- 
stand the facts in question. 

Article XVII. — The above mentioned commissions shall 
limit themselves to ascertain the truth of the facts alleged, 
without entering into any other appreciations than those 
merely technical. 

Article XVIII. — The international commission of inquiry 
shall present its report to the Powers which have constituted it, 
signed by all its members. Its report limited to the investiga- 
tion of facts, has, in no manner, the character of an arbitral 
award, and it leaves the contending parties at liberty to give it 
the value they may deem proper. 

ARTICLE XIX. — The constitution of commissions of in- 
quiry may be included in the arbitration bonds, as a previous 
proceeding, to the end of determining the facts which are to 
be the subject of the inquiry. 

Article XX. — The present treaty does not abrogate any 
previous existing ones, between two or more of the Contract- 
ing Parties, in so far as they give greater extension to compul- 
sory arbitration. Neither does it alter the stipulation regarding 
arbitration, relating to specific questions which have already 
arisen, nor the course of arbitration proceedings which may 
be pending by reason of the same. 

ARTICLE XXI. — Without the necessity of exchanging rati- 
fications, this treaty shall take effect so soon as three states, at 
least, of those signing it, express their approval to the govern- 
ment of the United States of Mexico which shall communicate 
it to the other governments. 

ARTICLE XXII. — The nations which do not sign the present 
treaty, may adhere to it at any time. If any of the signatory 
Powers should desire to free itself from its obligations, it shall 
denounce the treaty ; but such denouncement shall not produce 
any effect except with respect to the nation which may de- 
nounce it, and only one year after the notification of the same 
has been made. 

Whenever the denouncing nation shall have any arbitration 


negotiations pending at the expiration of the year, the de- 
nouncement shall not have any effect with reference to the case 
not yet decided. 1 

This treaty was signed by the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Dominica, Guatemala, Salvador, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, and Venezuela. At this conference Chile took 
strong grounds against compulsory arbitration, while Peru 
took strong and broad grounds in favor of it. 

The adoption of The Hague treaty by this convention prac- 
tically made all the nations of the world parties to it. It made 
its adoption so nearly universal as to make The Hague treaty 
and Tribunal a part of the international law for the government 
of all nations. 

The compulsory arbitration feature of this treaty which was 
signed by ten of the republics is one of the great features of 
this convention at the City of Mexico. It remains to be seen 
whether or not The Hague treaty will become practically 

The Hague and Mexico conventions have done a great 
work for the peace of the world in so far as that peace may be 
disturbed by international strifes. These treaties, however, do 
not reach the cases of revolutions and insurrections which so 
often take place within the Latin-American republics. 

1 Report of the Second International Conference of American States, Senate 
Document 330, pages 40, 45. 



A CONSIDERATION of the results of The Hague Convention of 
July, 1899, and the convention which assembled at the City 
of Mexico, October 22, 1901, seems necessary to a complete 
understanding of the effect of these conventions upon the 
principles of international law. 

The Hague Convention was signed by the United States of 
America, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, China, Den- 
mark, Spain, the United Mexican States, France, Great Britain 
and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Montenegro, 
the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, 
Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Bulgaria. 

The signatures of certain other nations, it is understood, 
have been added to the treaty since. 

The Second International Conference of American States, 
which convened at the City of Mexico, took up the subject of 
The Hague treaty, and it was ratified on January 15, 1902, by 
Guatemala, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, 
Costa Rica, Hayti, Dominica, Paraguay, Bolivia, Salvador, 
Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States. 

Chile and Brazil did not sign the convention, and it is not 
known whether or not they have since signed it, as they can 
do at any time under the provisions of Article XXII. 

Venezuela signed it, but the Venezuelan government with- 
drew its delegation on January 14, 1902, making its withdrawal 
retroactive to and from December 31, 190 1. 

Under these circumstances, Venezuela did not originally be- 
come a party to this convention, and it is not known whether 
or not she has since signed it. 

The Hague treaty provided that the non-signatory powers 
who were represented there, must make known their adhesion 


to it by a written notification addressed to the Netherlands 
government and communicated by it to all the other " Con- 
tracting Powers." 

As to those not represented there, it was provided by Article 
LX, that their adherence to the convention should form the 
subject of a subsequent agreement among the Contracting 

Since it is the substance and not the form of the transaction 
which must be looked to, it must be conceded that the action 
of the American republics made them parties to The Hague 
treaty. This convention at the City of Mexico is described 
in another chapter. It expressly recognizes the convention at 
The Hague on July 29, 1899, as a part of public international 
law, and it directs the respective republics, on a ratification 
of the same, to certify the fact to the government of Holland, 
through the regular diplomatic channels. 

Considering the action of the two conventions, it will be 
seen that The Hague treaty has been practically adopted by 
all the nations of the world ; or so nearly so that the treaty has 
become a part of international law. 

The following are quotations from Volume XVI of the 
" American and English Encyclopedia of Law," second edition, 
page 1 1 26. 

" Treaties and conventions between States may or may not 
be strong evidence of rules of international law on the subjects 
referred to therein, according to their character and purpose. 
A treaty which is intended to change or fix such rules, if 
signed by practically all the civilized powers likely in any way 
to be affected by it, is of such great authority that the rules 
declared thereby may be considered as thereafter a part of 
international law. If, however, any State intimately concerned 
in the subject of the rules, especially if one of the great powers, 
withholds its assent thereto, the treaty can be regarded as 
showing a tendency merely, and not as fixing an absolute rule 
binding on all nations. On the other hand, stipulations in 
treaties between two nations as to their mutual conduct in 
certain respects generally show either that the rules of inter- 


national law are otherwise, or, that they are uncertain, since if 
this were not the case, the stipulations would not be necessary. 
Such treaty stipulations may, however, if repeated in numerous 
treaties between different nations, gradually establish a usage 
and rules in accordance therewith, and they themselves will 
then gradually disappear as having become unnecessary." 

The same authority in the note to this text says : 

" Among treaties which may be regarded as establishing 
rules of international law, may be mentioned the declaration 
of the Congress of Vienna of 18 15, which fixed diplomatic pre- 
cedence, and the Geneva Convention of 1864, which, since the 
adhesion of the United States in 1882, may be regarded as 
having established the neutral character of persons and things 
employed in the care of the sick and wounded in war." 

Under the foregoing definitions, therefore, the general rati- 
fication of The Hague treaty has already made it a part of 
international law. It results, therefore, that all nations are bound 
by its provisions whether they have formally ratified it or not. 

Moreover, The Hague Convention had for its object the 
establishment of certain rules of international law. This is 
seen from the mode and circumstances of its being called 
together; as well as from the prefatory statements, which 
preface the protocol. This, of itself, like the preamble to a 
statute, elucidates the meaning and purport of the text. 

Upon full consideration it appears probable that Great 
Britain, Germany, and Italy have violated The Hague treaty 
in respect to mediation, in consequence of having attacked 
Venezuela without first having recourse to mediation as pro- 
vided for in Articles II and III of the treaty. 

Prior to The Hague treaty, it was proper for a State to offer 
its good offices for the settlement of disputes between other 
nations, even when an actual state of war had arisen, but the 
refusal of such offer was no cause of offence. Likewise, the 
offer might be made at the request of one or both of the dispu- 
tants, and sometimes two or more nations would join in making 
such an offer. 


Mediation, therefore, as introduced by The Hague treaty, 
is not a novelty in international law. The treaty enlarged and 
extended the principle of mediation so as to make it a moral 
if not a legal obligation to the disputing nations to resort to 
mediation before they should appeal to arms. It likewise 
made it a matter of moral obligation for nations influential 
with the disputing parties to offer their good offices for a 

Under the old regime nations were timid about offering 
their services, as they were likely to be looked upon as par- 
tisans in doing so, and thereby became involved in the con- 
troversy themselves. 

Under the treaty, mediation is not obtrusive or partisan, and 
the nations are entering upon it, not timidly as before, but 
resolutely and with alacrity. 

Arbitration also was formerly resorted to occasionally as a 
means of settling international disputes. The arbitrators were 
disinterested persons, and frequently were the rulers of other 

Arbitration, however, sprang up at the time of the disagree- 
ment upon the initiative or suggestion of one or both the 
parties, and it was generally resorted to in a limited class of 
cases, such as boundary disputes. Later on it became ex- 
tended and popularized, until it culminated in The Hague 
Tribunal, where all controversies can be adjudicated. 

There is at least a moral obligation to submit to this tribunal 
all international disagreements of a nature which involve 
" neither honor nor vital interests." This class of excep- 
tions will be found to be exceedingly limited in number, 
and even these excepted matters can be adjudicated by the 

As pointed out elsewhere, The Hague treaty is not to 
conflict with our traditional foreign policy. On the other 
hand it strengthens us in the assertion of it, and removes the 
chances of war to a large extent. It benefits Europe likewise, 
because it tends to preserve the " Balance of Power " there 
without the necessity for vast and expensive armaments. 


The "Balance of Power" system of Europe may be termed 
the "Monroe Doctrine" of Europe. 

It is thus defined by publicists : Vattel says that " by this 
balance is to be understood such a disposition of things as 
that no one potentate or state shall be able absolutely to pre- 
dominate and prescribe law to the others ; that all were equally 
interested in maintaining this common settlement; and that it 
was the interest and right and duty of every power to inter- 
fere even by force of arms, when any of the conditions of 
this settlement were assailed by any other member of the 
community." 1 

Frederick Von Gentry defines it in these words : 

" What is usually termed a balance of power is that constitu- 
tion subsisting among neighboring States, more or less con- 
nected with one another, by virtue of which no one among 
them can injure the independence or essential rights of another, 
without meeting with effectual resistance on some side, and 
consequently exposing ' itself to danger.' " 2 

This " Balance of Power " has had its victories at Waterloo, 
and in the treaty of 1856, ending the Crimean war. It has 
met its defeats in the partition of Poland ; the wresting of 
Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark, and in the consolida- 
tion of the German Empire. 

The far-reaching character of the two treaties is not popularly 
suspected. The world has entered upon a new and a far 
better era in both war and diplomacy. 

The enormous military establishments of Europe, as a 
result, will be curtailed, while a great measure of peace, 
tranquillity and repose will be bequeathed to the American 
States. 3 

1 New American Cyclopedia Vol. II, page 510. 

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 



CARLOS CALVO is a publicist who resides in the Argentine 
Republic. He published in 1868 his work on International 
Law in the Spanish language, which has now reached the 
fourth or fifth edition. His works have been translated into 
French, but never into English, so that he is better known in 
Europe than in the United States. Copies of the French 
edition are to be found in the state and judicial departments 
of the government. Aside from this there are only a few 
copies in the hands of private individuals in the United States, 
and these are in Spanish or French. 

Calvo is sometimes quoted with other writers as authority 
on international law by the Supreme Court of the United 
States in its published reports of its decisions. 

The Second International Conference of American States 
convened in the City of Mexico on October 22, 1901. The 
objects of this convention were stated by McKinley in his 
Message to Congress of December 5, 1899. After referring 
to the interest taken by other republics in such matters, he 
said: "In view of this fact and of the numerous questions of 
general interest and common benefit to all of the Republics of 
America, some of which were considered by the first inter- 
national American Conference, but not finally settled, and 
others which have since grown to importance, it would seem 
expedient that the various Republics constituting the union 
should be invited to hold, at an early date, another conference 
in the capital of one of the countries other than the United 
States, which has already enjoyed the honor." 1 

1 Report of Second International Conference of American States, Senate Doc- 
ument 330, pages 3, 4. 


This resulted in the approval of the various republics and 
the consent of their governments, and the City of Mexico was 
fixed upon as the place for holding the convention. 

On October 8, 1901, President Roosevelt appointed as 
delegates to that conference, Henry G.Davis of West Virginia, 
William I. Buchanan of Iowa, Charles M. Pepper of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, Volney W. Foster of Illinois, and John 
Garrett of Oregon. Among other proceedings of that con- 
ference was a motion offered by the Mexican delegation and 
adopted by the conference which reads as follows: 

" The delegation of Mexico has the honor of proposing to 
the Conference that it offer a testimonial of its esteem to the 
eminent Argentine writer, Mr. Carlos Calvo. 

" This motion is in harmony with the purposes of the con- 
gress, and is a significant proof of the spirit which unites the 
countries represented therein ; more than a glory for the 
Argentine Republic, a glory for all America is this sage, who 
consecrated his strenuous, and fortunately long life, to repair 
an omission of the writers on international law, ' who,' as he 
himself says, ' left this vast American continent in the dark, 
although its power and influence are increasing from one 
day to another, and whose people, in equality with those 
of Europe, are advancing on the road of civilization and 

" If to labors of such utility for our Republics, crowned in 
a masterly manner by his ' Theoretical and Practical Inter- 
national Law ' he devoted all his energy, it is but just that we 
should offer the expression of our sympathy to a man to 
whom may be applied the beautiful phrase of Lucan : ' He 
did not consider himself born for himself alone, but for the 
entire world ; he was the faithful guardian of justice and the 
observer of the laws of honor.' 

" For these considerations we respectfully ask the conference 
to transmit to his excellency, Mr. Carlos Calvo, the expres- 
sions of esteem which it cherishes for that eminent American 
writer." 1 

1 Report Second International Conference of American States, Senate Doc- 
ument 330 pages 180, 181. 


The resolution states the fact that Mr. Calvo had " conse- 
crated his strenuous and fortunately long life, to repair an 
omission of the writers on international law, who left this vast 
American continent in the dark; " but the resolution does not 
state what the omission was which produced so much impene- 
trable darkness and gloom in this hemisphere, neither does it 
show by what method Calvo could have evolved these prin- 
ciples of international law from his own inner consciousness. 

It is not claimed that the adoption of this resolution en- 
dorsing Calvo and his doctrines has the force and effect of a 
treaty between the United States and the other American 
republics. The proposition under consideration is not that of 
the binding force of that resolution upon the United States, 
but it relates to the view the European governments would be 
likely to take of the views entertained by the United States 
concerning the doctrines of Calvo when the American re- 
publics, including the United States, as the voice of one 
man broadly endorsed his views at a conference called by the 
United States for the purposes named in McKinley's message; 
and it could not be said that our representatives in that con- 
ference exceeded their authority in voting for that resolution, 
which seems to have had no opposition. 

The resolution carries with it the apparent implication that 
Calvo is the universally recognized international law-giver for 
all the American republics, and especially of the United States 
which was instrumental in originating the conference. 

The Calvo Doctrine as stated by him in his text is as follows : 

" America as well as Europe is inhabited to-day by free and 
independent nations, whose sovereign existence has the right 
to the same respect, and whose internal public law does not 
admit of intervention of any sort on the part of foreign 
peoples, whoever they may be." 1 

Under the doctrine thus enunciated, most, if not all of the 
Latin-American republics have enacted very drastic laws 

1 Calvo's "Droit Internationale," Paris, 1896, Tome 1, Section 204, page 350. 


against foreigners, which deny their right to appeal to their 
own governments for redress. These statutes not only take 
away this right of appeal, but they also deprive the foreigner 
of nearly every right of redress for the taking of his private 
property during periods of revolution and rebellion. 

Reference is here made to a special convention which was 
signed by all the Latin-American republics at the City of 
Mexico on January 29, 1903, during the session there of the 
Second International Conference of American States. This 
convention is given in full in the subsequent chapter entitled 
" Monroe and Calvo Combined." A careful reading of that 
convention will disclose an evident intent to leave foreigners 
practically without any redress for wrongs inflicted upon their 
persons or their property in times of revolution and rebellion. 

The great service which Calvo performed for the American 
republics was to convey the intimation to them that they could 
enact nearly all kinds of laws affecting the rights of foreigners 
and that they would be valid and binding. 

The Calvo Doctrine is built upon the well recognized prin- 
ciple of international law that foreigners must obey the laws 
of the government in which they are domiciled, or under which 
they do business and make contracts. The doctrine which is 
developed from this .general principle as enunciated by Calvo 
is of a novel character. It is so new that it has never yet 
actually been tested before any international tribunal. It 
would require thought and research to detect any difference 
in opinion between Calvo and the other publicists. The 
Calvo Doctrine is constructed on the innuendo which his 
text conveys, rather than upon the text itself. The innuendo 
comes from the statement in the text that a nation's public 
law does not admit of intervention by foreign nations, and that 
therefore a nation can enact statutes of every character what- 
soever in regard to foreigners, and they will not be the subject 
of any intervention. 

The most outrageous of all these statutes was enacted by 
the Venezuelan Congress, April 11, 1903. 

The full text of the act reads as follows : 


" Decrees. Article I. Foreigners shall enjoy, in the ter- 
ritory of Venezuela, the same right as Venezuelans, as it is 
determined by the constitution of the republic. 

Article II. Foreigners found within the territory of the 
United States of Venezuela shall be considered either as resi- 
dent or in transit. 

Article III. Domiciled foreigners are: 

1. Those who have acquired residence in conformity with 
the provisions of the civil code. 

2. Those who have voluntarily and without interruption, re- 
sided within the territory for more than two years, without 
diplomatic character. 

3. Those who own real estate within the territory of 
the republic, and who have established permanent residence 

4. Those who have been residing in the territory of the 
republic for more than two years and who are engaged in com- 
mercial pursuits or any other kind of industry, provided they 
have a house established in a permanent way, even though 
invested with the character of consul. 

Article IV. Foreigners in transit are such as are found 
within the territory of the republic and are not comprised 
within the definitions of the preceding article. 

Article V. Resident foreigners are subject to the same 
obligations as the Venezuelans, as to their persons as well as 
their properties, but they are not subject to military service, 
nor to the payment of forced and extraordinary war contribu- 
tions in case of revolution or of internal armed warfare. 

ARTICLE VI. Foreigners domiciled or in transit must not 
mix in the political affairs of the republic nor in anything 
relating to said political affairs. To this end they cannot : 

1. Form a part of political societies. 

2. Edit political newspapers or write about the interior or 
exterior politics of the country in any newspaper. 

3. Fill public offices or employment. 

4. Take arms in the domestic contentions of the republic. 

5. Deliver speeches which in any way relate to the politics 
of the country. 

Article VII. Domiciled foreigners who violate any of the 


provisions established in Article VI lose their character of for- 
eigners, and become ipso facto subjected to the responsibilities, 
burdens and obligations which might be occasioned to natives 
through internecine political contingencies. 

ARTICLE VIII. If in contravention of the express prohibi- 
tion of this law any foreigner exercises any public charge 
without being empowered thereto in conformity with the con- 
stitution, his acts are null and the person elected and the func- 
tionary who names him are jointly responsible for the same. 

Article IX. Foreigners in transit who violate the pro- 
visions of Article VI, shall be immediately expelled from the 

ARTICLE X. The presidents of the States and Federal 
districts, upon becoming aware that any one or more of the 
domiciled foreigners intermeddle in the political affairs of the 
republic, shall bring proper legal action, transmitting the pro- 
ceedings to the Federal executive. 

Article XI. Neither domiciled foreigners nor those in 
transit have any right to resort to the diplomatic corps, except 
when, having exhausted all legal means before the competent 
authorities, it clearly appears that there has been a denial of 
justice, or injustice or evident violation of the principles of 
international law. 

Article XII. Foreigners already here to be hereafter dom- 
iciled and those in transit who are not invested with a diplo- 
matic character shall be obliged to make a declaration before 
the civil authority that they submit to the provisions of the 
present law in its entirety, and to those of the decree of 
the 1 2th of February, 1873, which established the rules for 
the indemnification of foreigners. All foreigners who omit 
to make this declaration shall be expelled. 

Article XIII. The civil authorities before whom the dec- 
laration should be made shall not make any charge whatsoever. 

Article XIV. The national executive shall not issue 
exequaturs for the consular or vice consular service to persons 
who are engaged in trade. 

ARTICLE XV. The establishment within the country of any 
societies of any kind whatsoever, who do not fix their quarters 
or domicile therein, is definitely prohibited. 


ARTICLE XVI. Foreigners, like Venezuelans, have the right 
to bring claims against the nation for indemnification for loss 
in time of war by legally constituted military or civil au- 
thorities, provided always that the latter were acting in their 
political character. 

ARTICLE XVII. Neither foreigners nor Venezuelans can 
bring any claim against the government of Venezuela for loss 
or damage occasioned by revolutionary agents or armed bands 
in the service of any revolution. 

ARTICLE XVIIL The provisions of this law are without 
prejudice to the agreements contained in public treaties. 

ARTICLE XIX. The president of the States, and the gov- 
ernors of the Federal territories, shall immediately pro- 
ceed to draw up a list of foreigners domiciled within their 

ARTICLE XX. Foreigners who may come to the republic 
shall, in order to be admitted within its territory, be under the 
obligation of presenting before the civil authority the doc- 
uments which prove their personal status, and a certificate of 
good conduct issued by the authorities at their last place of 

Article XXI. The national executive shall make rules and 
regulations for the working of the present law. 

ARTICLE XXII. The executive decree of the 14th of Febru- 
ary, 1873, which determines the rights and duties of foreigners, 
and the executive decree of the 30th of July, 1897, which treats 
of the interference of foreigners in the electoral affairs of the 
country, are hereby repealed. 

Given at the legislative Federal palace in Caracas, this 
nth day of April, 1903, year 92 of the Independence and 45 
of the Federation. 

(Signed) J. A. Velutini, 

President of the Senate. 

Federal Palace, in Caracas, this 16th day of April, 1903, 
year 92 of the Independence and 45 of the Federation. 

To be executed. 

(Signed) Cipriano Castro. 1 

1 " Commercial Appeal," of Memphis, April 28, 1903. 


The statutes of Salvador and all or nearly all of the Latin- 
American republics contain provisions similar to the statute of 
Venezuela, which confers the same rights on foreigners as are 
enjoyed by citizens. 

These statutes, like that of Venezuela, deny the right of any 
foreigner to appeal to his own government through diplomatic 
channels until after he shall have exhausted all his remedies 
under the laws of the republic and through its courts and been 
denied justice. 

Without debating the question, it is proper to state that if 
these statutes are valid, then the foreigners are left absolutely 
without any remedy except such as these republics will admin- 
ister to them, and they are cut off from any right to lay their 
grievances before their own governments. 

The conferring on foreigners of the same rights as are en- 
joyed by citizens has a very comical side to it when its mean- 
ing is fathomed. These republics do not hold themselves 
liable for any property taken from any citizen by any revolu- 
tionary party, and the foreigner enjoys the same inestimable 
privilege of being thus robbed without redress. 

There would appear to be an element of justice in such a 
provision if it were not for the difficulty in determining which 
is to be considered the revolutionary party and which the gov- 
ernment party. 

Andrade was president of Venezuela, and had been elected 
for four years. He had served but little over one year when 
Castro got up a rebellion and drove Andrade from power. 
Matos was a member of Andrade's cabinet, and had been con- 
ducting a war against Castro, the usurper, and yet Matos is 
considered a revolutionary leader because he is unsuccessfully 
defending the established government against a usurper. This 
established government of Andrade and his generals, Matos 
and others, had despoiled the foreigners of their property 
before they came under the jurisdiction of Castro, the usurper, 
and yet the government will now claim that it is not responsi- 
ble for the taking of property from foreigners by Matos and his 
army because they are a revolutionary party. 



It is a well settled principle of international law that where a 
nation takes the property of a foreigner a just compensation 
must be given for it. 

It has been said that the statutes of some of these republics 
deny the right of citizens to compensation for property taken 
by the government or destroyed in war. Under such statutes, 
foreigners who enjoy the same rights would be denied redress. 

These statutes which are aimed at foreigners with so much 
ingenuity are in conflict with certain principles of international 
law. They are in conflict with that principle of law which pro- 
hibits one nation either in time of war or peace from appropri- 
ating to its own use the property of foreign subjects without 
just compensation therefor. They violate that other principle 
of international law which confers on foreign subjects the right 
to appeal to their own governments for redress through the 
regular diplomatic channels. 

Since these statutes have been enacted the question arises, 
which conflicting law must prevail and which one must give 
way. It is conceded on the one hand that the principles of 
international law require that the foreign citizen or subject 
obey the laws of the nation where he is domiciled. Upon a 
superficial view it would appear that the disciples of Calvo have 
the better of the argument. Since, however, all general rules 
have exceptions to them, it must be stated that nations do 
possess the general right to make laws in regard to foreigners 
within their dominions, but they have no right to deprive them 
of their property without just compensation, or to enact any 
laws against foreigners which are in conflict with the principles 
of international law between a foreign subject or citizen and his 
home government in respect to appeals for redress. 

In investigating these propositions it is necessary to bear 
in mind the distinction between private international law and 
public international law. The questions under discussion here 
arise under the latter. Private international law is a separate 
branch of jurisprudence, and any recourse to it could throw 
but little light on the questions which arise under the head 
of public international law. Whether the controversies arise 


under the one head or the other, it will be shown further on 
that the United States, and the States themselves as well, have 
held all contracts made in foreign countries and sought to be 
enforced in this country to be void when they were contrary 
to the public policy of the United States. 

It would be contrary to the public policy of the civilized 
world for any one or more nations to enact statutes which 
would nullify and set aside the rules of public international 
law. The Calvo Doctrine attempts to nullify the settled princi- 
ples of international law through the local municipal regulations 
of certain States. This is one of the most important questions 
which the United States has ever been called upon to consider. 
The future welfare of the United States depends greatly upon 
the proper solution of this important question. Recent events 
in this hemisphere are forcing this question to the front, and the 
consideration of it cannot be put aside any longer or allowed 
to go by default. The United States cannot take any equivo- 
cal position concerning it, and the effects produced by de- 
cisively taking a definite position will be far-reaching. 

The effort of Latin-America is to build up a system of 
American international law, not only for the government of the 
republics in this hemisphere, but also for the government of 
their foreign relations with Europe and the entire world. This 
is an absurdity. International law is defined as the rules which 
determine the conduct of the general body of civilized States 
in their dealings with one another. This international law 
cannot be made by a few States. It is a general principle 
which governs all. This international law cannot be repealed 
or modified by the statutes of one or more powers, nor by the 
concurrence of all the powers in the Western Hemisphere. 



The proposition now under consideration is concerning the 
validity or invalidity of the statutes of Salvador, Venezuela, 
and other republics in respect to the denial of the right of 
any foreigner to resort to an appeal to his home government, 
through its accredited diplomatic channels. 

This proposition does not relate to the right to these diplo- 
matic appeals alone, but it relates also to the right of these 
republics to take away from foreigners domiciled, or doing 
business there, the rights they possess under the rules of in- 
ternational law. 

The question tersely stated is whether or not a foreign 
power can legislate in hostility to the rules of international 
law. To restate the question in another form the proposi- 
tion is that where local or municipal statutes of any nation 
conflict with the settled principles of international law, 
which control? Do these local or municipal statutes set 
aside and annul the principles of international law, or do the 
rules of international law control and render the local or 
municipal statutes void? 

The rights under consideration are such rights which the 
subjects of other nations may have of life, liberty, and 
property as are secured to them by the rules of international 

Among these is the right to a just compensation for prop- 
erty taken or destroyed by the government where the foreign 
subject is domiciled or transacts business. This leads to a 
consideration of the question of public policy. 

Public policy is defined in the text-books as follows: "That 
principle of the law which holds that no one can lawfully do 


that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public, or 
against the public good, may be termed the policy of the law, 
or public policy in relation to the administration of the law. 
... If a contract binds the maker to do something opposed 
to the public policy of the State or nation, it is void, however 
solemnly made." 1 

The Supreme Court of the United States has said that "the 
public policy of the government is to be found in its statutes, 
and when they have not directly spoken, then in the decisions 
of the courts and the constant practice of the government offi- 
cials; but when the law-making power speaks on a particular 
subject, over which it has constitutional power to legislate, 
public policy in such a case is what the statute enacts." 2 

It results from this principle that if the public policy of 
the United States is not sufficiently well defined by the de- 
cisions of the courts and by the constant practice of the gov- 
ernment officials, then it would be competent for Congress to 
enact a law defining the public policy of the United States 
in respect to the rights of any of its citizens to waive any of 
their rights as citizens to appeal to this government, through 
diplomatic channels, for redress in cases where they had either 
contracted not to do so, or in cases where the countries in 
which they are temporarily domiciled have enacted laws which 
appear to take away that right, and which were intended to 
deprive them of that right. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has said, in 
Mitchell vs. United States, 21 Wallace, 350, that where a 
party goes into the enemy's country from the United States, 
and trades there in the enemy's country, he has thereby 
not lost his original domicile in the United States, although 
he has remained in the enemy's country during an entire war. 
The court held that it was a case where the party had been 
trading with the enemy during the war, and that his contract 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, second edition, Vol. XXIII, 
pages 455, 457. 

2 United States vs. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 United States, 
page 340. 


was void on the ground of public policy. The domicile of 
the parties to the trading, and not their situation at the time 
thereof, determines its legality, and, accordingly, it is not 
made legal by the fact that one goes into the enemy's coun- 
try and carries it on with an enemy there. And so inter- 
course between an alien domiciled in a country and one of 
its enemies is invalid. 

These principles are referred to for the purpose of showing 
that citizens of the United States in foreign countries are 
still amenable to the laws of the United States and subject 
to its jurisdiction. 

The United States has no statute which fixes and deter- 
mines its public policy with reference to its citizens who 
are domiciled and doing business in, or who make contracts 
in foreign countries, in respect to their right to diplomatic 

Our proposition is that the public policy of the United 
States, with reference to its citizens who are temporarily 
domiciled in foreign countries, and who make contracts there, 
controls over the public policy or statutes of foreign nations, 
who have statutes and a public policy which is contrary to our 
own. There may be some qualifications to the statements as 
broad as this, but the matter here under consideration relates 
to the special question of the right of a foreign government 
to deprive one of the citizens of the United States of the 
right to appeal to his own government for protection, under 
the provisions of the statutes of such foreign country, or by 
virtue of such contracts which he may have made, waiving 
such right. 

The opinion here expressed is that the right of appeal is a 
jurisdictional one which could not be waived by the citizen, 
and that it could only be waived by the United States, and 
that it would be improper for the United States to waive it, 
because it would be contrary to its public policy to do so. 

The Federal and State judiciary in the United States have 
settled a great many principles of public policy, in which 


statutes have been held to be void as contravening public 
policy, and in which contracts have been held to be void in 
part for the same reason. Without going into any details of 
these matters, a few of the heads of subjects which have been 
thus passed upon may be mentioned. 

The following classes of contracts have been held by the 
Federal and State judiciary to be void on grounds of public 
policy: contracts in restraint of marriage; contracts waiving 
the equity of redemption ; agreement to waive the statutes of 
limitation; contracts limiting the liability of common car- 
riers; Sunday contracts ; contracts affecting rights acquired 
under the pre-emption and homestead laws; contracts made 
in consideration of compounding offences; contracts rendered 
for service in obstruction of justice ; contracts to suppress 
prosecution; to violate a statute; sale of private, personal 
influence; contracts relative to future damages; immoral 

The class of contracts which are held to be void on the 
ground of public policy which are known as "contracts to not 
resort to a judicial forum " must also be considered. 

The principle here referred to is laid down as follows : 
"The consent of parties cannot oust a court of its jurisdic- 
tion, and, therefore, a contract not to resort to a judicial 
forum in the settlement of disputes is not binding at law." 1 
The same principle is referred to in another form in the fol- 
lowing language: 

"Where the parties to a contract enter into an absolute 
agreement or covenant, that in case a dispute should arise 
under such contract, all matters in difference between them 
relating thereto, shall be submitted to arbitration, such stipu- 
lation is void on grounds of public policy, because to give 
effect to it would be to oust the courts of their jurisdiction." 2 

These principles are well established by the judicial de- 
cisions of Great Britain and of the several State courts, and of 

1 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Vol. XII, page 305. 

2 Ibid., second edition, Vol. XII, page 570. 


the Supreme Court of the United States. In Home Insurance 
Company vs. Morse, 20 Wallace, 445, the Supreme Court of the 
United States decided a case that came there from the State 
of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin by a statute passed 
in 1870 required all foreign insurance companies, before they 
could do business within the State, to file a written instru- 
ment duly signed and sealed, in which they stipulate, among 
other things, that in case of any suits brought against them 
they will not remove any of them for trial into the United 
States Circuit Court or Federal Court. 

The State court of Wisconsin sustained the validity of this 
statute, and proceeded to render judgment against the insur- 
ance company, after a petition for a removal to the Circuit 
Court of the United States had been regularly filed. When 
this case came before the Supreme Court of the United 
States, it held that the statute of Wisconsin was repugnant 
to the Constitution of the United States and to the laws 
thereof, and that it was illegal and void. 

In the case of the Potomac Steamboat Company vs. Baker 
Salvage Company, 123 United States Reports, 59, the Su- 
preme Court of the United States held that an agreement 
to submit matters to arbitration did not in any manner affect 
the rights of the parties to go into a court of admiralty to 
have their matters adjudicated. 

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Kenneth vs. 
Chambers, in 14 Howard, 38, held that "a contract by an 
inhabitant of Texas, to convey land in that country to citi- 
zens of the United States, in consideration of advances of 
money made by them in the State of Ohio, to enable him 
to raise men and procure arms to carry on the war with 
Mexico, the independence of Texas not having been at that 
time acknowledged by the United States, was contrary to 
our national obligations to Mexico, violated the public policy 
of the United States, and cannot be specifically enforced by 
a court of the United States." 

The same court in Oscanyan vs. Winchester, 103 United 
States, 261, held that a contract to corruptly influence the 


Turkish government to enter into a contract, although made 
in Turkey, was void and contrary to the public policy of the 
United States, and that it would not be enforced without re- 
spect to the question as to whether or not it was valid in the 
foreign country where made. The point was made in the 
case that the illegal nature of the contract is not set up in 
the pleadings. Mr. Justice Field, in rendering this opin- 
ion, quoted the language of Mr. Justice Swayne in another 
case as follows : 

"There can be no waiver. The defence is allowed, not 
for the sake of the defendant but of the law itself. The 
principle is indispensable to the purity of its administra- 
tion. It will not enforce what it has forbidden and de- 
nounced. The maxim, Ex dolo malo non oritur actio, is 
limited by no such qualification. The proposition to the 
contrary strikes us as hardly worthy of serious refutation. 
Whenever the illegality appears, whether the evidence comes 
from one side or the other, the disclosure is fatal to the 
case. No consent of the defendant can neutralize its effect. 
A stipulation in the most solemn form, to waive the objec- 
tion, would be tainted with the vice of the original contract, 
and void for the same reasons. Wherever the contamina- 
tion reaches, it destroys. The principle to be extracted from 
all the cases is that the law will not lend its support to a 
claim founded upon its violation." 

The courts of Great Britain and the United States and the 
State courts have recognized the principle that parties may 
stipulate for an arbitration of certain questions, such as the 
quantity, quality, or price of material, or workmanship, the 
value of the work, the amount of loss or damage or the like, 
as a condition precedent to the right to sue under the con- 
tract itself. These are almost exclusively insurance contracts, 
where some minor details are submitted to arbitration as a 
condition precedent to suit under the terms of the contract. 
The principle, however, involved in controversies between 
citizens of the United States in foreign countries which deny 
them the right to appeal to their own government through 


diplomatic channels, is one which affects their entire right 
of appeal. 

Parties have a right to submit their differences to arbitra- 
tion after their causes of action have arisen, and they always 
have the right to go into a court of equity to set aside the 
award on the ground of fraud, duress, or undue influence, and 
other equitable grounds. 

The reservations in the statutes of a conditional right of 
appeal, which the Latin-American republics, like Salvador 
and Venezuela, have made, amount to nothing. They would 
have that right under any and all circumstances without such 
a provision of their statutes, under the principles of common 
international law. Their statutes practically deny the entire 
right of foreigners to seek redress by appeals to their own 
governments, and in its final analysis it is simply absolutely 
taking away the right of the foreigner to seek for redress from 
his own government. There can be no doubt but that these 
statutes are void in so far as they legislate against the right 
of a foreigner to appeal to his own government, although 
no case has as yet arisen between this government and the 
Latin-American republics which required an adjudication of 
this precise question. 

The Republic of Salvador interposed this defence to the 
rights of certain American citizens in a case which was 
arbitrated and decided by Hon. Don M. Dickinson of De- 
troit, Michigan, and Sir Henry Strong, Chief Justice of 

The facts on which their decision was based are stated in 
part in the opinion. They read in part as follows: 

"This controversy had its origin in schemes to establish 
and develop a new port on the Pacific coast of Central 
America, in the Republic of Salvador, on the Bay of 
Jiquilisco. 1 

" For years, as the greatness of the natural resources of 
Salvador had been discovered and understood, the attention 
of capital, both foreign and domestic, had been directed to 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, pages S62 to 873. 


the subject of founding another and, as was hoped, a better 
port for the purposes of commerce, and one to which the 
larger and richer resources of the Republic, both in agri- 
culture, including cotton and tobacco, its rich woods, and 
its mineral wealth, might most economically be made tribu- 
tary, and which should also be a port of distribution for 

"As early as 1850 the Bay of Jiquilisco, in connection with 
this subject, had been brought to the attention of the invest- 
ing world by well-known writers whose positions and resi- 
dence in Central America made their statements impressive. 

" In these statements the Rio Lempa, as ' the most im- 
portant natural feature of Salvador,' in connection with its 
proximity to estuaries of the Bay of Jiquilisco and the great 
advantages of a port which might be established on that bay, 
were pointed out. 

" Prior to the exploitation and development of the con- 
cession involved in this case, substantially the only ports of 
the Republic for commercial purposes had been those of La 
Libertad Acajutla and La Union, neither of which had cer- 
tain commercial advantages that would appertain to a new 
port if established in Jiquilisco Bay, and all of which were 
subject to objections as seaports which at the new port would 
be obviated. 

"As time went on and knowledge of the conditions and of 
the possibilities of the development of the country became 
more widespread, interest in the subject increased. The 
Government of Salvador, however, had never undertaken the 
improvement of the harbor within or the ship entrances to 
Jiquilisco Bay. 

"In the late summer or fall of 1894 contesting petitions 
were presented to the Government of Salvador for a conces- 
sion of the right, for a period of years, to establish steam 
navigation in the port of El Triunfo, setting forth the de- 
tails of the proposed enterprise. One application was pre- 
sented by Simon Sol, Luis Lopez, and Lorenzo Campos, and 
the other by Henry H. Burrell and George F. Thompson, 
citizens of the United States, and Gustavo Lozano and 
Emeterio S. Ruano, citizens of the Republic of Salvador. 


The proposals were published in the official journal of the 
Republic by the proper executive department of the Govern- 
ment, and bids were invited for the franchise so sought. 

" These proceedings resulted in the awarding of the fran- 
chise or concession to the Burrell party, and on October 6, 
1894, the Republic of Salvador granted them, for the period 
of twenty-five years, the exclusive right of steam navigation 
of the port, together with certain valuable privileges and as 
valuable exemptions. The grant was in the form of a bilat- 
eral contract, signed by the executive officers in behalf of the 
Government of Salvador as party of the one part and by the 
grantees as party of the other part. 

"On November 7, 1894, to forestall any possible mis- 
understanding or narrower construction in future as to the 
extent of the concession, the President of the Republic 
officially construed the contract as covering the entire Bay 
of Jiquilisco. 

"The constitution of Salvador requiring that such a con- 
cession must be submitted to the supreme legislature for 
ratification, it was so submitted and ratified by that body 
on April 15, 1895. 

"There can be no doubt that the privileges conferred were 
of very great value ; but in turn there were most onerous re- 
ciprocal obligations. 

"The grantees' privileges were exclusive, as to steam navi- 
gation of the port, to connect with any line of steamers then 
in existence or which might thereafter be established, and 
to transship passengers, products, and merchandise which 
should be exported through the port ; to carry on the coast- 
ing trade with adjacent ports, to establish a line of steamers 
to connect with other ports of Central America, Colombia, 
Mexico, and California. 

" And not only did the exclusive privileges apply to the 
port of El Triunfo, but they were attached to such other 
places on Jiquilisco Bay and its estuaries as the company 
might establish for embarkation and debarkation, and for 
the export of the natural products of the country. 

"The grantees were given the right to import, free of 
duties and taxes, all materials necessary for founding, con- 


structing, and maintaining all works pertaining to the enter- 
prise; exemption from taxes on all their property, franchises, 
and operations; exemption of their employees from military 
service; exemption from the use of stamped paper and reve- 
nue stamps in making contracts within the scope of the busi- 
ness, and the free use of the telegraph and telephone lines 
operated by the nation. The Government further agreed to 
do its utmost to keep the roads open between the port of 
El Triunfo and the coffee centres of the department of 
Usulutan, the department or municipal subdivision in which 
Jiquilisco Bay was situated. . . . 

" It is apparent that upon the execution of its contract 
with the Salvador Government, through which the conces- 
sion was acquired, and upon the formation of the corporation 
required by the concession, the El Triunfo Company entered 
upon the preparation and development of the port, and the 
performance of the requirements imposed upon it with ex- 
ceptional enterprise and vigor." 

After stating the record, proceedings, and evidence, the 
arbitrators rendered a decision, from which the following is 
an extract: 

" In view of this history it need hardly be said that the 
evidence discloses that at the time the proceedings in 
bankruptcy were taken by the false and fraudulent repre- 
sentatives of this company no creditor had complained, and 
no creditor had a just cause of complaint against it for non- 
payment of its debts. On the contrary, its complete finan- 
cial success and the certainty of its prosperous future had 
been but then completely assured. 

"It is claimed that the United States cannot in this case 
make reclamation for its nationals, the shareholders in the 
El Triunfo Company who had thus been despoiled, for 
the reason that such citizens as so invested their money in 
the Republic of Salvador must abide by the laws of that coun- 
try, and seek their remedy, if any they have, in the courts 
of Salvador; and, moreover, that before reclamation can be 
successfully urged against Salvador in their behalf it must 
be shown that such citizens of the United States, having 


appealed to the courts of the Republic, have been denied 
justice by those courts. 

" The general proposition of international law as thus 
stated is not denied. 

" If the Government of Salvador had not intervened to 
destroy' the franchise and concession of the El Triunfo Com- 
pany, and thus despoiled the American shareholders of their 
interests in that enterprise, an appeal might have been, as 
it was evidently intended to be, made to the courts of Sal- 
vador for relief from the bankruptcy proceedings. The first 
step to that end would be the turning out of the conspir- 
ing directors and the installment of a proper directory by 
the supreme authority of the corporation, the shareholders' 

"But by the executive decrees, rather than by the bank- 
ruptcy proceedings, the property rights of the American 
citizens involved were irrevocably destroyed. 

" Seeking redress through a called meeting of the share- 
holders of the company, the moment the call was issued, and 
it appeared that the proper remedy was to be sought by the 
corporation itself, showing that the proceedings by its alleged 
representative directors, for bankruptcy, were fraudulent, and 
that the bankruptcy court had been imposed upon by their 
conspiracy, in fraud of the incorporators, whom they falsely 
pretended to represent, that moment the Government of Sal- 
vador came to the aid of the conspirators, and by executive 
act destroyed the only thing of value worth retrieving through 
the courts. 

"It is not the denial of justice by the courts alone which 
may form the basis for reclamation against a nation, accord- 
ing to the rules of international law. ' There can be no 
doubt,' says Halleck, 'that a State is responsible for the 
acts of its rulers, whether they belong to the legislative, 
executive, or judicial department of the government, so far 
as the acts are done in their official capacity. ' 

"The law enacted by the Congress of Salvador in relation 
to foreigners provides: ' Only in case of the denial of justice, 
or of a voluntary delay of its administration, can foreigners ap- 
peal to the diplomatic forum ; but only after having exhausted 


in vain the ordinary remedies provided by the laws of the 
Republic.' It is apparent in this case that an appeal to the 
courts for relief from the bankruptcy would have been in vain 
after the acts of the Executive had destroyed the franchise, 
and that such a proceeding would have been a vain thing is 
the sufficient answer to the argument based upon this law of 

" What would it have profited these despoiled American 
citizens if they had successfully appealed to the courts for 
the setting aside of the bankruptcy proceedings, after the 
concession was destroyed by the closing of the port of El 
Triunfo, and the grant of the franchise to strangers? 

"Said Mr. Fish to Minister Foster: ' Justice may as much 
be denied when it would be absurd to seek it by judicial 
process as if denied after being so sought. ' 

"Again, this is not a case of the despoliation of an Ameri- 
can citizen by a private citizen of Salvador, on which, on 
appeal to the courts of Salvador, justice has been denied the 
American national, nor is it a case where the rules applying 
to that class of reclamations, so numerous in international 
controversies, have to do. 

"This is a case where the parties are the American 
nationals, and the Government of Salvador itself as a party 
to the contract; and in this case, in dealing with the other 
party to the contract, the Government of Salvador is charged 
with having violated its promises and agreements by destroy- 
ing what it agreed to give, what it did give, and what it was 
solemnly bound to protect. 

" So one of the most respected authorities in international 
law, Lewis Cass, has laid down the undoubted rule, and its 
exception, as broad as the rule, when he says that ' When 
citizens of the United States go to a foreign country they go 
with an implied understanding that they are to obey its laws 
and submit themselves in good faith to its established tri- 
bunals. When they do business with its citizens, or make 
private contracts there, it is not to be expected that either 
their own or the foreign government is to be made a party 
to this business or these contracts, or will undertake to de- 
termine any dispute to which they give rise. 


" ' The case is widely different when the foreign government 
becomes itself a party to important contracts, and then not 
only fails to fulfil them, but capriciously annuls them, to 
the great loss of those who have invested their time, labor, 
and capital in their reliance upon its good faith and justice.' 

"In any case, by the rule of natural justice obtaining uni- 
versally throughout the world wherever a legal system exists, 
the obligation of parties to a contract to appeal for judicial re- 
lief is reciprocal. If the Republic of Salvador, a party to the 
contract which involved the franchise to the El Triunfo Com- 
pany, had just grounds for complaint that under its organic 
law the grantees had, by misuser or nonuser of the franchise 
granted, brought upon themselves the penalty of forfeiture 
of their rights under it, then the course of that Government 
should have been to have itself appealed to the courts against 
the company, and there, by the due process of judicial proceed- 
ings, involving notice, full opportunity to be heard, consid- 
eration, and solemn judgment, have invoked and secured the 
remedy sought. 

" It is abhorrent to the sense of justice to say that one 
party to a contract, whether such party be a private indi- 
vidual, a monarch, or a government of any kind, may arbi- 
trarily, without hearing and without impartial procedure of 
any sort, arrogate the right to condemn the other party to 
the contract, to pass judgment upon him and his acts, and 
to impose upon him the extreme penalty of forfeiture of all 
his rights under it, including his property and his investment 
of capital made on the faith of that contract." 1 

Their decision did not involve the question to which 
especial attention is directed here. They recognized the 
principle of international law that citizens of the United 
States who made contracts in Salvador must show that they 
have appealed to the courts of the republic and have been 
denied justice by those courts. 

The Republic of Salvador was a party to this contract, and 
had granted a twenty-five years' franchise, which it arbitrarily 
abrogated. For this and other reasons stated in the opinion, 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, pages 862 to 873. 


the statute of Salvador which is quoted had no application, 
and the right of the citizens to appeal to the government of 
the United States was maintained. 

The precise question under discussion was therefore not 
passed upon. Senor Jose Rosa Pacas, Chief Justice of Sal- 
vador, was one of the three arbitrators. Sir Henry Strong 
and Mr. Dickinson agreed on every point, while the Chief 
Justice of Salvador disagreed with them on every point. The 
last-named was of the opinion that the laws of Salvador took 
away the right of our nationals to appeal to the United States. 

The constitution of Salvador declares: 

"Title IV, Article XLV. Foreigners, from the moment 
they arrive in the territory of the Republic, shall be strictly 
bound to respect the authorities and to observe the laws, and 
shall acquire the right to be protected by them. 

"Article XLVI. Neither Salvadoraneans nor foreigners 
can in any case claim of the Government any indemnity for 
damages or detriment which may be caused by factions to their 
persons or property, having their speedy remedies to prose- 
cute their claims against guilty officials or individuals. 

"Article XLIX. No international agreement can modify 
in any particular the provisions contained in this title. 

"Article L. Foreigners shall remain subject to a special 
law of alienism." 

The law enacted by the Salvadoranean Congress in relation 
to foreigners provides: 

"Article XXXVIII. Every foreigner is obliged to obey 
and respect the institutions, laws, and authorities of the Re- 
public, as provided by article XLV of the constitution, and to 
obey the decisions and sentences of the tribunals, without 
power to seek other recourses than those which these same 
laws give to Salvadoraneans. 

"Article XXXIX. Only in case of a denial of justice or 
of a voluntary delay of its administration can foreigners appeal 
to the diplomatic forum ; but only after having exhausted in 
vain the ordinary remedies provided by the laws of the 



"Article XL. It is provided, however, that there is a 
denial of justice only when the judicial authority shall re- 
fuse to make a formal decision on the principal matter in 
dispute or on any incidents of the case of which it has taken 
cognizance or which is submitted to its jurisdiction. Con- 
sequently, by the sole fact that the judge has pronounced a 
decree or sentence, in whatever sense, it cannot be claimed 
that there is a denial of justice, even though it may be said 
that the decision is iniquitous or given against express law. 

" Article XLI. The delay of the administration of justice 
ceases to be voluntary whenever the judge founds it in any 
reason of law or in any physical impediment which is not in 
his power to remove." 1 

The Honorable William L. Penfield, Solicitor of the State 
Department, in his brief in the El Triunfo Company case 
with Salvador made the following observations concerning the 
constitution and laws of Salvador in respect to foreigners. 

" Without entering into an elaborate analysis of these sin- 
gular provisions of the constitution and laws of Salvador, it 
is obvious that even if not ingeniously contrived for the 
purpose, they would have the effect, if carried out in prac- 
tice to a logical conclusion, to defeat the ends of justice in 
respect of foreigners. Under the claim of obedience to the 
local laws, the constitution prohibits the making of a treaty 
which would guarantee the rights of aliens, recognized among 
all civilized states, to appeal to their governments for pro- 
tection ; next commands obedience to the local laws ; next 
follows the enactment of laws requiring obedience to the 
decisions and sentences of the tribunals, ' without power to 
seek other recourses than those which these same laws give 
to Salvadoraneans ; ' and finally, a legislative definition of a 
denial of justice, which is in itself the consecration of in- 
justice, by declaring that a decision is just even though it 
is grossly and confessedly iniquitous. 

" The will of the sovereign may be expressed either through 
constitutional and legislative enactments or through the un- 
restrained action of the executive. That will, whether ex- 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, page 845. 


pressed in the one form or the other, cannot control the 
international relations of states; cannot bind any foreign 
state. When there is a clash of opinion between two sov- 
ereign states on the right of intervention when invoked by 
the citizen of either against the other, the right is to be 
determined by principles of international law affecting states 
in the sovereign capacity and applicable to the given case. 
An attempt to prohibit by municipal law the right of inter- 
vention given by the common law of nations is inconsistent 
with sovereignty; and in all such cases the right of interven- 
tion is decided upon the merits of the particular case. A 
sovereign state cannot yield this right without abandonment 
of one of its own most imperative duties." 1 

Penfield further says: 

" It is more than doubtful whether the Government of the 
United States would admit the competency of its citizen to 
barter away his right to its protection against tortious, arbi- 
trary acts of lawlessness on the part of any state. 

"On this question precedents are not wanting. 

"The Imperial Government of Germany has decided in a 
case arising in Venezuela that it will no longer consider 
itself bound by the clause in most contracts between for- 
eigners and the Venezuelan Government, which states that 
all disputes growing out of the contract must be settled in 
the courts of the latter; that the German Government is not 
a party to these contracts and is not bound by them ; and that 
it reserves the right to intervene diplomatically for the pro- 
tection of its subjects whenever it shall be deemed best to 
do so, no matter what the terms of the contract in this par- 
ticular respect are. 

"The British Government, in a case arising in the United 
States, has taken the position that in a matter of interna- 
tional obligation its right of intervention is not affected even 
by the failure or omission of the individual to avail himself 
of a remedy before the courts for the grievance complained of. 

"While the government of the United States has not taken 
so extreme a position as Germany and Great Britain, it has 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, page 845. 


declared that ' laws of a foreign state attempting to deprive 
citizens of the United States from having recourse to their 
own Government to press their claims diplomatically will not 
be regarded as internationally operative by the Government 
of the United States. ' " * 

It may be considered to be reasonably well settled that it 
is contrary to the public policy of the United States to per- 
mit the right of diplomatic appeal of one of its citizens to be 
taken away either by the statutes of a foreign country or by 
a special contract with the individual. 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, page 844; Wharton's Digest, 
Vol. II, section 242, page 695. 



Every practising lawyer of experience knows that there is 
always in every community a local influence which generally 
favors the resident litigant much more than it does the non- 
resident or foreign litigant in our courts. This gives rise to 
one of the great difficulties in the administration of justice 
in the courts of the country. The United States has happily 
remedied this difficulty as far as it is expedient for it to do 
so, by taking cases out of the sphere of local influence by 
providing for non-residents and foreigners the right to re- 
move causes from the State to the federal courts. 

The right of citizens of the same State to bring their causes 
in the United States courts against each other, or to remove 
them there when brought in the State courts, is denied. Hence 
it may be said that non-residents and foreigners enjoy rights 
under the laws of the United States which are denied to the 
citizens of the respective States; and yet the justice and pro- 
priety of this has never been questioned. 

The foregoing statement is rendered necessary in order to 
value the magnanimity of Venezuela in Article I of the Act 
of April, 1903, in regard to foreigners. It reads thus : " For- 
eigners shall enjoy in the territory of Venezuela the same 
rights as Venezuelans, as it is determined by the constitution 
of the republic." 

The constitutions of Venezuela and those of all the Latin- 
American republics were modeled after the constitution of 
the United States. The rights of foreigners to sue and be 
sued in the United States courts and to remove their cases 
there from the State courts were conferred by acts of Con- 
gress and not by the constitution. The constitution only 
brought such cases within the purview of the judicial power 


of the United States, but it is optional with Congress to 
confer such jurisdiction in respect to foreigners or not as 
it sees fit. Therefore, if Venezuela has not taken away the 
rights of foreigners to go into a federal court for redress or 
to remove a cause there from one of its States or departments, 
it has at least announced, in the statute of April, 1903, that it 
would be contrary to its public policy to confer such right. 

The same public policy obtains throughout all Latin- 
America. They have the same imperium in imperio form 
of government with the United States, although their States 
are sometimes called departments, and sometimes provinces. 
In theory, at least, these republics claim for their respective 
States the same degree of independence of the federal power 
that exists in the United States. All or nearly all of these 
republics have statutes which take away the rights of for- 
eigners to appeal to their home governments until after they 
have exhausted all remedies in their courts. The obvious 
meaning, at least in a general sense, is that they shall not 
have this right to appeal until they shall have exhausted their 
remedies and been denied justice in the State or department 
courts of these republics. The federal governments which 
enact these laws do not control the administration of justice 
to the foreigner who impliedly contracts with them to be 
bound by these laws, or who contracts directly that he will 
do so. These republics, or those of them which still retain 
our federal and State system, are no more able to guarantee 
a fair and impartial trial in their State or department courts 
than the United States was in respect to the New Orleans 
rioters who slew the Italian subjects in consequence of the 
latter's alleged connection with the Mafia. 

Therefore, in so far as we can look upon such statutes as 
an implied contract between the foreigner and the republic, 
it is a contract without any consideration to support it, and 
if it could be classed as a contract it would be illegal and 
void for want of a consideration. It partakes of the nature 
of a wagering or gambling contract, the conditions of which 
are "Heads I win, and tails you lose." 


We come now to view these statutes of Venezuela and 
other republics simply as public laws governing foreigners, 
and find that in this respect they fail to come up to the re- 
quirements of international law. When a sovereign admits 
foreigners within his dominions "he engages to protect them 
as his own subjects, and to afford them perfect security," 
says Vattel. 

It appears to be very clear that the Latin-American repub- 
lics do not meet these engagements. In their federal capa- 
city they can do but little. Their States, or departments, 
whose judiciary they do not control adjudicate almost ex- 
clusively upon the rights and wrongs of foreigners. These 
republics in their capacity are able to do but little toward 
the protection of foreigners, or toward redressing assaults upon 
their lives and liberty, and wrongs against their property. 

It is probable that our own federal system is defective in 
this respect, but our government has always been disposed 
to concede and grant to foreigners every right and privilege 
which they could reasonably claim, so far as our form of gov- 
ernment would permit. Our diplomatic correspondence a few 
years since with Italy and China brought the fact to the at- 
tention of the world that under our peculiar federal system 
the United States was unable to guarantee that the murderers 
of Italian and Chinese subjects should have justice meted 
out through the courts, because the crimes were committed 
within the States, where the State courts alone could take 

There can be no doubt but that the general government 
ought to have the power to answer and redress all just claims 
which foreign nations could properly make under the provi- 
sions of international law. 

The difference between the United States and many of the 
Latin-American republics is this: the former goes to the 
limit of its constitutional ability in protecting the rights of 
foreigners, while the latter go to the extent of their ability 
in withholding such protection. 



The legislation of the Latin-American republics has gone 
to the utmost limit in depriving foreigners of all forms of 
redress against their respective governments in respect to 
their rights of life, liberty, and property. It is a well 
settled principle of international law that a citizen or sub- 
ject of one nation who carries on trade, and has a commer- 
cial domicile within the territory of another nation has no 
right to claim against the nation in which he resides any 
different treatment in case of loss by war, either foreign or 
civil, than that which the latter country metes out to its 
own citizens or subjects. Where a revolutionary body de- 
stroys property of a foreigner, such foreigner has no claim 
against the government in cases where the citizen would have 
none. Where soldiers of the government wantonly destroy 
the property of a foreigner domiciled within its territory, 
such government is not liable for the loss where the spolia- 
tion occurred without the authority of the commanding gen- 
eral and against his express orders. The general principle 
is that neutral property in a belligerent territory shares the 
liability of property belonging to the citizens or subjects of 
the State. 

The same commission which tried the El Triunfo Com- 
pany case about the same time tried the Gelbtrunk case. In 
1898 Maurice Gelbtrunk & Co., a partnership composed of 
Maurice and Isidor Gelbtrunk, both of whom were citizens 
of the United States, were engaged i» mercantile business 
in Salvador. In November, 1898, a revolutionary force oc- 
cupied the city where this firm did business, and seized and 
appropriated the goods of the firm. The arbitrators, Sir 


Henry Strong, Don M. Dickinson, and Jose Rosa Pacas, who 
had been selected by the governments of the United States and 
Salvador, were of the unanimous opinion that the Republic 
of Salvador was not liable. 1 

The principle is equally well settled that it is the duty of 
every State to protect its citizens abroad. If a foreign State 
has despoiled such citizen of his property he has a claim 
against it for compensation. Every State is responsible for 
the acts of its rulers, which have been performed in an offi- 
cial capacity, whether such official belongs to the executive, 
legislative, judicial, or military branches of the government. 2 

This principle does net end here. There, are cases where 
the acts of an unauthorized person were afterwards ratified by 
the government; and in such cases the government is liable 
in all respects the same as if it had originally conferred the 
authority. There is still another principle which sometimes 
extends the liability of the State for damages to foreigners. 
It often occurs that a revolutionary body seizes upon and 
usurps the functions of government for a time, and while thus 
intrenched in power commits acts of spoliation. The gen- 
eral principle is that the acts of the usurper are valid and 
binding upon the government which he administers. There 
is still a further view to take of this matter. De facto gov- 
ernments sometimes develop into governments de jure. This 
was the case with Venezuela. Castro was at first a revolu- 
tionary leader, and afterwards became the head of the State 
by military force, and later became president by vote of the 
people. When acts of spoliation took place at the hands of 
Castro's forces, or the forces which defended against him, it 
would become a question of considerable difficulty to deter- 
mine when the government was or was not bound. Since 
Castro became not only the de fatto but the de jure presi- 
dent of Venezuela, it becomes a question of some difficulty 
as to whether in such cases the government ought not to be 
held liable. 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, pages 877 to 880. 

2 Ibid., page 847. 


It is clear upon principle that the Andrade government 
bound Venezuela for all its acts of spoliation until the func- 
tions of government were administered by Castro. 

Where revolutions are frequent, and where the vicissitudes 
of government are changeful and varied, it becomes a ques- 
tion of great difficulty to determine when and where the 
liability of the State begins and where it ends. Moreover, 
civilized nations will not view with complacency any anarchi- 
cal conditions of government where the life, liberty, and 
property of their subjects and citizens are constantly men- 
aced. They are liable at any time to intervene in the in- 
terests of civilization and in the interest of their subjects 
who are affected by these conditions. The German govern- 
ment has already taken advanced ground on these questions, 
and has announced that it reserves the right to intervene 
diplomatically for the protection of its subjects whenever it 
shall be deemed best to do so. 1 Great Britain on the other 
hand has not taken, as yet, so extreme a position. Count Von 
Biilow, in his speech in the Reichstag, which is quoted else- 
where, says: "It is a well-known principle of England's 
commercial policy that everybody investing capital abroad 
does so upon his own risk. We found ourselves in a dilemma, 
but nobody can reproach us with acting without sobriety and 

The evident meaning of this is that the indisposition of 
Great Britain to push diplomatic intervention in Venezuela 
to the full extent which Germany had determined to do, 
became a source of embarrassment to the latter after the 
movement to coerce Venezuela began. This situation de- 
veloped soon after the United States began its work of 
mediation. The general trend of public opinion in Europe 
is in favor of governments intervening diplomatically for the 
protection of their subjects who are doing business in South 
America and who have a commercial domicile there. This 
change of sentiment is brought about by the anarchical and 
revolutionary conditions there, as well as by the laws of 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, page 844. 


the Latin-American republics which discriminate so savagely 
against foreigners. 

A recent magazine writer has given a graphic description 
of these conditions, which reads in part as follows: 

" As one journeys towards South America one longs to 
believe that the Star of Liberty, like that of Bethlehem, 
leads the way, and that one will find our brethren to be 
animated by high ambitions and noble resolves, struggling 
upward like ourselves. 

"This pleasant anticipation appears to be in a fair way 
towards realization when one picks up the constitution and 
laws of one of these countries, and reads the somewhat or- 
nate, but sufficiently profuse, declarations in favor of liberty, 
justice, and equality. The Bill of Rights is scarcely shorter 
than the Moral Law, but the traveller soon learns that it is 
most apt to be vociferously preached from the house tops 
in those communities where anarchy and despotism reign 

"The visions of constitutions, with their sacred guarantees 
of personal liberty, and of laws with their well-rounded periods 
of equity, soon fade away; and the observer finds in their 
stead the decrees of dictators and military despots. 

"True, these decrees, by whatever military despot issued, 
are mostly interlarded with soul-inspiring protestations of 
undying patriotism, with references to the sacred will of the 
people, and with appeals to the Deity, in every form of cant- 
ing phrase, in testimony of the purity of intention and spot- 
less nobility of character of the promulgators. 

"All this does not deceive the intelligent observer. He 
is not long on Latin-American soil when he discovers that 
he is outside the bounds of civilization. For every move he 
makes he must first obtain a passport from the military Jefe. 
Everywhere he goes he is confronted by a soldier or a police- 
man who demands his name and his business. 

" If he sends a telegram he must first get the approval 
of the government censor. If he writes a letter, a hundred 
chances to one it is broken open and read by the postal 
authorities before it is sent. If he walks along the side- 


walk he knows not what moment a soldier will bring him 
to halt with a ' Quien viva? ' and a Mauser levelled at him, 
and an order that he walk in the street. He soon finds out 
that he himself is liable to be locked up in jail on any 
trivial pretext, or none at all. It does not matter what may 
be said of his social or business standing, if he makes pro- 
test at the acts of these tyrants he may be expelled from the 
country without redress, or incarcerated in a jail. If he ap- 
peals to the American Consul for aid, the chances are seven 
to one that the mouth of that dignitary has long been stopped 
by government concessions, or that he is an actual party to 
the intrigues. But our traveller has by this time only com- 
menced his initiation. He has only learned what any in- 
telligent man would certainly ascertain to be true within 
forty-eight hours after setting foot on the soil of any Latin- 
American country, with the exception of Mexico, Chile, and 
the Argentine Republic. 

" It does not take the observer long to ascertain that there 
is not in any of these countries such a thing as a legally 
constituted government. The constitutions prescribe that 
elections shall be held at stated periods, and in a certain 
manner, for the election of the president and other officials 
of the government. But no elections are ever held. 

"Occasionally a newspaper correspondent, some disciple 
of Mark Twain, as a huge joke writes about an election in 
Venezuela or Colombia, the same as he might about a sea 
serpent. But not within the memory of any living man has 
there been a real election in those countries. 

"The constitutions of those countries provide how the 
members of the Legislatures and of Congress shall be 
elected, but not since they were separated from Spain has 
there been one single Congress or Legislature elected in the 
manner prescribed. An honest ballot and a fair count, such 
as we understand them, are so strange and foreign to these 
countries that in the wildest dreams of fancy no one of them 
ever imagined such a thing. 

"One might have greater hope of success in attempting to 
explain the Australian ballot system to a Chinese peasant in 
the centre of Manchuria than to any of those people. 


"The constitutions provide that the laws shall be passed 
by the legislatures of the several states, or by the Congress 
for the Federal Union. Yet ninety-five laws out of every 
hundred are edicts of the dictators, pure and simple; and 
no pretence is made that any legislative body ever read 
them, let alone passed them or engrossed them. 

" Read the daily or weekly issues of the respective ' Gazeta 
Officials ' of these countries, and you will see that they are 
almost wholly composed of laws in the shape of decretas of 
the dictator. It would appear that the respective dictators, 
and in this they all seem to be alike, spend their odd mo- 
ments thinking up schemes for robbing the people, and keep 
their typewriters busy in formulating these into decretas, 
which their courts are obliged to interpret as law, and 
which in fact form the law, and the only law that there is. 

"The constitutions describe how they may be amended, 
and their regulations are so precise and formal that a for- 
eign jurist might be inclined to take them seriously. As a 
matter of fact, a dictator abolishes a constitution or amends 
it, or adopts a new one, with as little ceremony as he would 
use in ordering his breakfast. True, changes of this char- 
acter are sometimes made by a so-called provisional Congress, 
but, as the members of such a body are always appointed by 
the dictator and selected to do his bidding, a little thing like 
amending the constitution or abolishing it, or making a new 
one, is such a trifling affair that it may be done almost any 
afternoon. Indeed, the constitution, in whole or in part, is 
suspended at the whim of the dictator, without consulting 
anybody, and whenever it suits his convenience. 

" Having learned the novel and easy method by which laws 
are made and unmade, one will not be surprised to know that 
the methods of their interpretation and enforcement are no 
less unique. There are in these countries many able scholars 
and fine lawyers, who constitute the material for a creditable 
judiciary; but, unfortunately, even this department of the 
government is at the mercy of these brutal, ignorant, cor- 
rupt, vicious, and wholly intolerable despots. 

" Lawyers of character and ability are not wanted as judges, 
and they would fear to accept such position if tendered to 


them. In fact, the better element shuns politics as it would 
a pestilence. 

" It may be asked whether the travesty on government 
herein described is not abnormal and temporary. The reply 
is that this condition of anarchy, for it is nothing else, is 
and has been the normal and ordinary condition of Venezuela 
and Colombia, and most of the other Latin-American coun- 
tries, ever since Spain lost its dominion over them, with the 
exception of brief intervals when some dictator more power- 
ful than the rest has succeeded by force of arms in maintain- 
ing his authority." 1 

This same writer discusses the ruling class as follows: 

" It will not comprise more than ten per cent of the total 
population in any Latin-American country, but it makes all 
the trouble, is responsible for the rapine, bloodshed, murders, 
revolutions, and anarchy which have so long disgraced Latin- 
America. This class, as a rule, represents a mixture of 
Spanish and Indian blood, oftentimes with a sprinkling of 
negro, and sometimes of other elements. 

" He who originated the formula for the composition of 
this class must have laughed grimly when he finished his 
work; for one might study chemistry for a thousand years 
without being able to devise such an atrocious composition. 

" It is true that a small number of good men are always 
to be found in this class. Why, no one knows, unless it 
be for the same reason that leads a good woman to carry 
bouquets of flowers to a brutal murderer. 

" Occasionally an able lawyer, or a good doctor, or a re- 
sponsible business man becomes ambitious to hold office, 
infatuated with the glamour of politics, or falls in love with 
the music of the drums or the clash of the swords, and he 
joins this class, much to the consternation of his friends as 
well as of his enemies. As a rule, this class is composed 
of adventurers, ambitious and unprincipled military men, 
many outright criminals, others whose lives have been de- 
voted to intrigue and to the machinations for which these 
countries are noted; and, taken altogether, it is the most 

1 North American Review, Vol. CLXXVI, page 518. 


aggressive, pretentious, good-for-nothing, nondescript, vil- 
lainous, treacherous set of semi-banditti which was ever 
organized on the face of the earth, held together by the 
cohesive power of public plunder, and by the ambition to 
tyrannize over others. It is of this class that the so-called 
' governments ' of these countries are formed. One faction 
of it is always in power, looting the public funds, living in 
Oriental splendor off the forced contributions from foreign 
merchants, or off the receipts of custom-houses, running 
things generally in that high and mighty way which only a 
Latin-American can emulate, while the other faction is try- 
ing to get into power, so that it may have the good things ; 
and there is where the revolutions originate. 

"There is not enough for all. Foreign merchants have 
been plucked until they have become few in number. Great 
foreign syndicates under Guzman Blanco loaned millions to 
the government, nearly all of it to be stolen by corrupt offi- 
cials ; and they invested other millions in railroads and other 
enterprises, most of which have been ruined or confiscated by 
one military despot or another. Now the influx of foreign 
capital is small, and the pie for these dictators contains so 
few plums that it behooves them to fight royally over what 
there are. 

"The outrages which are committed by the faction of this 
fourth class which is in power, and concurrently by the fac- 
tion which is out of power and consequently in revolution, 
cannot be properly described within the limits of a magazine 

" It must suffice to say that no foreign house or company 
doing business in one of these countries has ever been able 
to escape destruction unless continuously backed by its gov- 
ernment, and that in most cases heretofore that has been 

"In every case, without exception, the foreigner has been 
systematically looted and robbed by the officials of the gov- 
ernment, and their political henchmen. 

" Usually he has been ruined financially in the end, and 
often he has lost his liberty and his life, and always with- 
out redress. South America, from one end to the other, 


is strewn with the wrecks of American and European in- 
vestments. " 

• ••••• 

" Prophetic appear to have been the words of the great 
Bolivar near the end of his long and marvellous career. 
He learned three-quarters of a century ago what our North 
American officials seem never to have learned; and that is 
that the people of Latin-America are helplessly and hope- 
lessly incapable of self-government. He said : 

"'In America there is no such thing as good faith, neither 
among nations nor among men. Our constitutions are books, 
our laws are papers, our elections are combats, and life itself 
is a torment. We shall arrive at such a state that there is 
no foreign nation which will condescend to return and con- 
quer us, and we shall be governed by petty tyrants.' 

"There is no passage in Holy Writ containing a truer 
prophecy than these memorable words of Bolivar." 1 

The condition of things described by this writer shows that 
the greater number of the Latin-American republics are in 
a condition of anarchy and incapable of protecting the rights 
of any one, much less the rights of foreigners. 

In view of the fact that anarchy and not law is the rule, it 
requires no gifts of prophecy to say that the nations of the 
civilized world will not tolerate such legislation and such 
conditions. The foreign subjects may yield a certain degree 
of obedience to these laws, but their governments will be 
the judges of the fairness and impartiality with which jus- 
tice is administered. The plain duty of the United States 
is to discourage the enactment and enforcement of drastic 
and inimical laws against foreigners. The very expression 
of these laws on their face carries with them an intimation 
that it is not justice but injustice which the judicial branch 
of the government is expected to mete out to foreigners. 
The government of the United States cannot afford to per- 
mit the Latin-American republics to attach the Calvo sup- 
plement to the Monroe Doctrine. The United States has 

1 North American Review, Vol. CLXXVI, page 51S. 


always been friendly to foreigners, and has from the founda- 
tion of the republic encouraged foreign immigration, and 
stands for fair play and kind treatment of foreigners by the 
Latin-American republics. 

These statutes against foreigners are declarations of war 
against civilization. The original European settlers in 
Spanish-America have largely assimilated to the aborig- 
ines and the imported Africans, and they have produced a 
form of semi-barbarism which now turns to assail North 
American and European civilization through the operation 
of statutes which are to be enforced through the most im- 
proved system of anarchy, which will retain foreigners 
within their dominions long enough to rob them of the 
acquisitions of a lifetime, but not so drastic as to prevent 
others from coming in to be plundered and turned loose 
upon the world penniless. 

International law furnishes the rules for the determination 
of questions arising where a civil war is being waged, but it 
furnishes no satisfactory solution of the rights of the parties 
where anarchy is the rule, and law and order is the excep- 
tion. All the complicated questions arising from a condi- 
tion of anarchy are now beginning to be thrust upon the 
attention of the government of the United States through 
the complaints of European powers. Much depends on our 
correct solution of them. 

In February, 1904, The Hague Tribunal rendered its deci- 
sion in the contention between Great Britain and Germany 
on the one hand and Venezuela on the other. The proposi- 
tion had been made by Venezuela to the allies that if they 
would raise the blockade of the Venezuelan ports thirty per 
cent of the collections on imports would be applied to the 
payment of Venezuela's foreign creditors. 

Great Britain and Germany proposed that if they were 
made preferred creditors they would accept the proposition.. 
This proposal for a preference was declined. An agreement 
was thereupon entered into, among other things, to refer this 
claim to a preference to The Hague Tribunal, which ren- 



dered its decision sustaining the claim for a preference. 
The tribunal in deciding this case has taken the position 
that where a government has gone so far in the protection 
of its citizens or subjects as to exercise its police power by 
the seizure of ports of entry for the purpose of the seques- 
tration of the import revenues, a preference over other 
creditors has thereby been conferred. The effect of this 
decision will be an incentive to war by European govern- 
ments against the Latin-American republics, and in this 
respect The Hague Tribunal may become a court for the 
promotion of war rather than of peace. 

This decision will become a precedent to be followed in 
similar cases. While the decision was no doubt sound upon 
the peculiar facts of that particular case, yet it should be 
distinguished from all future cases of the exercise of the 
police power by a government on behalf of its subjects 
against a debtor nation. Venezuela was not a signatory of 
The Hague treaty originally, nor did she become such by 
reason of the convention at the City of Mexico of October 
22, 1901. As stated elsewhere, Venezuela withdrew its dele- 
gation from this conference on January 14, 1902, making the 
withdrawal retroactive to and from December, 1901. 1 

It may be assumed with propriety that at the time the 
allies blockaded the ports of Venezuela The Hague treaty 
had not become obligatory upon the parties to that contro- 
versy because Venezuela had not signed it. It may also be 
assumed that as The Hague Convention was still in its for- 
mative state, the provisions of the treaty had not as yet 
acquired the force and effect of international law. Article 
II of this treaty provides that the parties to it, in case of 
serious disagreement, shall have recourse to the good offices 
or mediation of one or more friendly powers before there is 
any appeal to arms. 

Among signatories to The Hague treaty it would appear 
to be the better principle to hold that no preferences could 

1 Senate Document 330. Report of Second International Conference of Ameri- 
can States, page 11. 


be granted to powers which had appealed to arms before they 
had first exhausted their remedies by recourse to mediation. 
If the adoption of The Hague treaty has now become so 
general as to make it a part of the international law the rule 
should be the same as in case where both parties were signa- 
tories of the treaty. By distinguishing future cases from the 
one referred to on the grounds above indicated, a long stride 
will be taken in the interest of peace. 

Since The Hague treaty will henceforth become a part of 
international law by reason of the practical universality of its 
adoption, the proper construction to give it would be that no 
creditor nation can gain any preference by hostile demonstra- 
tions without first complying with the provisions of Article II of 
the treaty, which requires a resort to the peaceful methods 
of mediation and an exhaustion of this means of settlement be- 
fore recourse to war. 

The decision of The Hague Tribunal in giving a preference 
as stated, ought not to be followed as a precedent in future 
cases, as the law applicable to the future cases will be different 
because of the fact that The Hague treaty will henceforth, 
on well established principles, become a part of international 
law. It would contravene the international public policy of 
the future to confer rights on belligerents who had acted in dis- 
regard of the plain provisions of law in acquiring such claims 
to preference. The difference between the two methods of 
procedure is as widely different as it would be in cases where 
one creditor steals the debtor's property and credits its value 
upon the debt, and another creditor obtains a judgment 
against the debtor and causes the property to be regularly 
levied on and sold, and purchased at execution sale by the 

A strict compliance with Article II of The Hague treaty 
must be made a condition precedent to any right of preference. 

It would be a constant menace to the United States, in the 
assertion and maintenance of its traditional foreign policy, to 
recognize the right to a preference by a creditor nation which, 
without first resorting to mediation, had had recourse to war. 


The philanthropic sentiments of mankind, the aspirations of 
men everywhere would be disappointed and defeated by per- 
mitting such preferences in violation of this new international 
public policy, which has been inaugurated by The Hague 



THE failure of the Panama Congress to agree and unite upon a 
policy for the Western Hemisphere which would be binding 
upon all the republics left the United States of America to 
maintain the Monroe Doctrine alone. 

The Southern republics have been the beneficiaries of our 
peculiar system, while there is no policy of a reciprocal char- 
acter which has been adopted by any of them. 

In case this government should become involved in war with 
one or more European powers in defending one of the South- 
ern republics from conquest by a European nation, there is 
nothing in the existing treaties between this government and 
the Southern republics which would make it incumbent on 
them or either of them to aid this government in its defence 
of the republic which is threatened with overthrow. 

There is nothing in the declared policies of the Southern re- 
publics of a traditional or legislative character or otherwise, 
which would give the United States the assurance that any 
one or more of these republics would in any manner contribute 
any material aid or support to the United States in carrying 
on a war which had for its object the preservation of any re- 
public from overthrow, and to prevent the erection of a mon- 
archy upon its ruins. 

When the Panama Congress was originally determined upon 
by Simon Bolivar, it was his purpose to form the republics 
which had secured their independence of Spain into'one con- 
federation, of which he was to be the head. Bolivar originally 
only invited the Spanish-American republics to be represented 
at the Panama Congress. Santander, his vice-president, and 
at the time acting-president of Colombia, extended the invita- 


tion to the United States to send delegates. Coming as it did 
so soon after the Monroe declaration, John Quincy Adams and 
Henry Clay seized upon the opportunity to attempt to have a 
secret treaty formed among all the republics of this hemi- 
sphere, which would commit them one and all to the Monroe 

The letter of Mr. Clay to Mr. Poinsett, our Minister to 
Mexico, seemed to be proof positive of Mr. Clay's purposes. 
Mr. Clay, as has been shown, explained that the pledge that 
Monroe made in his declaration was not a pledge to Mexico, 
but a pledge that this government made to itself. Adams 
and Clay both made disclaimers of any intention to form any 
alliances with the Spanish republics against European aggres- 
sion. The bitter opponents of these statesmen heard their 
explanations with at least apparent incredulity. The explana- 
tion of Mr. Clay was unique ; nevertheless it has ruled and gov- 
erned this country in its foreign policy from that day to this. 

When we look back over the years that have intervened 
since the Panama Congress, it appears to be almost a provi- 
dential deliverance that this country should have escaped 
making a direct league, offensive and defensive, with the Latin- 
American republics at Panama, as was contemplated by the 
friends of the measure. Without arguing the question it must 
appear obvious that no advantages could have accrued to this 
government from such a union. 

Aside from the West Indies and British America there is 
little or nothing to which the Monroe Doctrine could apply, 
except to the Latin-American republics. If British America 
ever becomes separated from Great Britain, it will control its 
own destiny, without regard to any policy of this government. 

If the matter of coaling and supply stations can be settled by 
a revision of the principles of international law, there will then 
practically be nothing left for the Monroe Doctrine to operate 
upon, except the Latin-American republics. They will really 
be its sole beneficiaries. Their frequent revolutions, which re- 
sult in the destruction of private property within their borders 
belonging to European merchants and capitalists ; their frequent 


blockades against the commerce of the world; their frequent 
defaults in the payment of the interest on their public debts; 
the outrages that are committed upon Europeans in times of 
insurrection and rebellion, all conspire to class the Monroe 
Doctrine risks as hazardous for this government. 

American publicists contend that the enforcement of the 
Monroe Doctrine does not amount to a protectorate; while 
this is technically true, it is at least a form of protection to 
these republics resulting from a policy which has for its sole 
object the protection, preservation, and future well-being of 
the republic of the United States against monarchial influences, 
which may, in fact, be much more beneficial in their effects 
than the conditions of anarchy and revolution which are so 
frequent among the Latin-American republics. 

The time has arrived when these republics should adopt the 
Monroe Doctrine each for itself, and all for themselves collec- 
tively when the occasion shall demand it. They should not 
leave this government to fight for constitutional liberty in this 
hemisphere, single-handed and alone. The protection which 
this government would receive by overthrowing a European 
monarchy which may at some future time be erected on the 
ruins of one of these distant republics, where anarchy and 
military despotism alternate, would be in the highest degree 
problematical. The interest of this country might be opposed 
to such a policy in many instances. It is self-evident that if 
the Monroe Doctrine is a good policy for the United States to 
pursue, it is, for still more cogent reasons, a good policy for 
the Latin-American republics to adopt. 

We now turn from this condition of isolation of the United 
States in respect to its traditional foreign policy to consider 
the manner in which the Calvo Doctrine is growing up as a 
parasite upon the Monroe Doctrine. 

A convention was signed at the City of Mexico on January 
29, 1902, at the Second International Conference of American 
States, by the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Salvador, Guate- 
mala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and 


Uruguay. The convention recites the fact that the delegates 
were duly authorized to sign and bind their respective govern- 
ments with the exception of the United States, Nicaragua, and 
Paraguay. The two latter signed the convention, but the dele- 
gates from the United States did not. The material portion 
of this convention reads as follows : 

"First: Aliens shall enjoy all civil rights pertaining to citi- 
zens, and make use thereof in the substance, form or procedure, 
and in the recourses which result therefrom, under exactly the 
same terms as the said citizens, except as may be otherwise 
provided by the Constitution of each country. 

" Second: The States do not owe to, nor recognize in favor 
of foreigners, any obligations or responsibilities other than 
those established by their Constitutions and laws in favor of 
their citizens. 

" Therefore, the States are not responsible for damages sus- 
tained by aliens through acts of rebels or individuals and in 
general, for damages originating from fortuitous causes of any 
kind, considering as such the acts of war whether civil or 
national; except in the case of failure on the part of the con- 
stituted authorities to comply with their duties. 

" Third : Whenever an alien shall have claims or complaints 
of a civil, criminal or administrative order against a State, or 
its citizens, he shall present his claims to a competent Court of 
the country, and such claims shall not be made, through dip- 
lomatic channels, except in the cases where there shall have 
been on the part of the Court, a manifest denial of justice, or 
unusual delay, or evident violation of the principles of in- 
ternational law." 1 

The republics which signed the foregoing convention, to- 
gether with the United States, signed another convention on 
January 27, 1902, for the formation of Codes on Public and 
Private International Law. It provided that "the Secretary 
of State of the United States and the Ministers of the American 
Republics, accredited in Washington, shall appoint a com- 

1 Report of Second International Conference of American States, Senate 
Document 330, pages 203, 204, 228. 


mittee of five American and two European jurists to draft a 
Code of Public International Law and another of Private Inter- 
national Law." 1 

It will be seen that if the United States should be fortunate 
enough to be represented on this committee, the disciples of 
Calvo would still be in the majority and the majority of the 
committee would report a code of public and private inter- 
national law which would embrace the Doctrine of Calvo, 
with all its deductions and corollaries. 

Another convention was signed on January 29, 1902, by the 
United States and other republics heretofore named, providing 
for a Third International Conference to meet within five years 
at the call of the same parties, who were to prepare codes 
of public and private international law. Article III of the 
Convention for the preparation of the Codes required that 
these Codes should be submitted to the respective govern- 
ments and to the next American International Conference. 

When the fragments are thus gathered together, we find 
that a system of international law is to be adopted, at least 
by this hemisphere, which shall embrace all the doctrines of 
Calvo. The entire scheme is so formed that his doctrines 
cannot escape adoption if majorities rule. The^ four Latin- 
Americans would out-vote the two Europeans, and the one 
citizen of the United States. Here is a complete system out- 
lined fraternally and unostentatiously which would cause the 
most distinguished Oriental diplomat to blush for his own in- 
feriority. It frees the United States from some of its illusions 
on the subject of American conferences, and American tribu- 
nals of arbitration. No American international tribunal could 
be convened which would render its awards in harmony with 
the public policy of the United States. 

The Calvo Doctrine will furnish the cause for all or nearly 
all the wars and diplomatic controversies between Latin-Amer- 
ican and European powers, while the United States is ex- 
pected to defend it singly and alone, with its army and navy, 

1 Report of Second International Conference of American States, Senate 
Document 330, pages 203, 204, 228. 


and by means of its diplomacy. In other words, the United 
States is expected to fight all the battles for both doctrines. 
These two doctrines have no relation nor connection with each 
other, and cannot have any connection unless the United 
States should adopt the Calvo Doctrine. 

The alternative is presented to the United States to adopt 
one course or the other. The course of this government in 
the recent Venezuelan episode as well as in respect to certain 
controversies between European powers and Salvador and 
Nicaragua has left the question unsettled as to what course the 
United States would adopt. There appears, however, as yet 
to have been no formal declaration of this government in 
opposition to the Calvo Doctrine. 

This government cannot adopt Calvo's supplement to the 
Monroe Doctrine. The two are antagonistic and can never be 
united into any American system. The United States will 
continue to oppose absolutism, but it cannot unite with Latin- 
America in any crusade against civilization. The " sick man 
of Europe " will never get well until the Bible supplants the 
Koran in Turkey. The sick man of Latin-America will never 
be restored to health until that country acquires a civilization 
equal in degree and stability to that of Europe, and a mode of 
dealing with the race problem which is as efficacious as that 
which is enforced by the people in the southern part of the 
United States. 

The principle announced by Calvo that the public law of the 
American nations does not admit of any intervention on the 
part of foreign nations is unsound. It contravenes interna- 
tional law, and assumes indirectly to abrogate the sovereignty 
of foreign nations in respect to their citizens and subjects. 

The Monroe and Calvo Doctrines cannot be combined in 
any American system. The fact should be made known by 
the United States to the European powers that it does not 
indorse the Calvo heresy. 



From the time when Eros threw the golden apple inscribed 
" To the fairest " among the Olympian beauties, down to 
December 14, 1902, when the British and German navy bom- 
barded Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, the causes of war have 
been as various and preposterous as have been the causes of 
difficulties among individuals. 

International law does not define with precision what is to 
be considered a justifiable cause of war, nor does it define sat- 
isfactorily what would be an unjustifiable one. It has created 
a tribunal, however, which must necessarily pass upon such 
questions upon principles similar to the principles of the com- 
mon law. Among the just causes of war, Vattel enumerates 
the right " to recover what belongs to us, or is due to us." 1 

It can fairly be presumed that the right of one nation to 
demand and enforce the payment from other nations of debts 
owed by them to the subjects of such nation, will be main- 
tained, although eminent statesmen and diplomatists have dif- 
fered on this subject. 2 

The European constable has made his appearance twice 
among the Latin-American republics of this hemisphere for 
the avowed purpose of collecting the stale claims of private in- 
dividuals. Each time this constable has had a posse comitatus, 
embracing more than half the navies and armies of Europe. 
The posse comitatus of 1902-03 was composed of the armies 
and navies of Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. The rumor 
was current that nearly all of the balance of Europe was lying 
in ambush waiting for the word of command to join. The 

1 Vattel's "Law of Nations," Chitty's edition, page 303. 

2 North American Review, Vol. CLXXVII, Number 6, pages 810, 811. 



first appearance of the European constable in this hemisphere 
was in 1861, when the United States was in the throes of a 
stupendous civil war. The armies and navies of Great Britain, 
France, and Spain composed the posse comitatus to aid in 
sequestering the customs dues at Tampico, Vera Cruz, and 
other gulf ports of Mexico. Great Britain and Spain withdrew 
upon certain assurances by the Mexican government, while 
France remained and overthrew the republic and created an 
empire with a Hapsburg on the throne of Mexico. 

Venezuela was in the throes of a revolution, in which she 
had fought and won the last decisive battle, when the Euro- 
pean constable suddenly appeared with his posse comitatus 
and bombarded Puerto Cabello and San Carlos and blockaded 
her ports. It was a strange spectacle for Americans to behold, 
a European constable surrounded with such naval and military 
pomp, to protect him when he went to levy on Venezuela. 

This second advent of the European constable was not her- 
alded like other great events of such magnitude. It came as 
a surprise. One of the great surprises was that these three 
great naval powers of Europe felt it incumbent on them to send 
so large a fleet of ironclad vessels, when it was known that 
Venezuela had no navy. She had but three or four small 
vessels, the most valuable of which was a pleasure yacht, which 
Castro had purchased from a citizen of New York, and on 
which one or two small guns had been placed. This yacht 
had been kept tied to the shore at La Guayra for several 
months to enable Castro to escape, in case the tide of success 
should turn against him. 

The United States was seriously engaged at the time in 
negotiating a treaty with Colombia for a lease to enable the 
government to commence at once the construction of the 
Panama Canal. This European combination has impressed 
the people with the idea that the collection of debts was a 
mere cover and a subterfuge for an indirect assault upon the 
Monroe Doctrine, and with a view also of postponing and ulti- 
mately defeating the United States in the construction of the 
canal. In this attack on Venezuela, the people of the United 


States found history repeating itself, and when they compared 
the expressions of the European press with the protestations 
of European governments, they found themselves unable 
to draw any satisfactory distinction between diplomacy and 

The allies attacked Venezuela when she was occupied to the 
full extent of her power and limited resources. They not 
only did this, but they blockaded the Venezuelan ports as 
soon as a substantial and decisive victory had been achieved 
by the government over the insurgents, thus leading to the 
presumption that they were aiding the revolutionists. Castro 
had charged that they were aiding the revolutionists, and 
among other things, he referred to the seizure by Great Britain 
of the island of Patos as an evidence, claiming that the revolu- 
tionists had sold the island to Great Britain for means to carry 
on the revolution. 

This great naval demonstration by the allies may not have 
been so exclusively directed against the United States as the 
face of the transaction seems to indicate. It might have been 
directed in part against all the republics of South America. 
All these republics have a uniform public policy which is dis- 
cussed elsewhere ; which denies the right of armed interven- 
tion to collect a public debt. 

The following statement, which was given out March n, 
1903, to the public press at the legation of the Argentine 
Republic at Washington, D.C., tends to show the position of 
Argentina upon the right of European nations to enforce im- 
mediate payment by armed intervention, as well as her position 
upon the Monroe Doctrine itself: 

" Recent publications referring to the note of instructions 
sent by the Argentine Government to its Minister in Washing- 
ton, Dr. Garcia Merou, in regard to some of the features of 
the Venezuelan incident, give the erroneous impression that 
Argentine asked for an alliance with the United States, and 
that its proposal was rejected by^the Secretary of State. 

" In fact, the dispatch of Dr. Drago, Minister of Foreign 
Relations of the Argentine Republic, aimed only to explain to 


his diplomatic agent in Washington the views of his home 
Government relative to the coercive collection of public debts 
of American states by European nations, and instructed him 
to convey his views to Secretary Hay, expressing his hope 
that the doctrine of international public law set forth by the 
Argentine Government should prove acceptable to the United 

" Dr. Drago says: ' Taking into consideration the real char- 
acter of many of the obligations contracted by the Govern- 
ments of the minor South American republics, the Argentine 
Government has felt that there is great danger to the peace of 
the continent if the compulsory demand of immediate pay- 
ment of public debts, or national obligations, is to be accepted 
in silence, without discrimination, as a right of the stronger 
Powers of Europe to control and dominate the weaker and 
struggling states of Central and South America. 

" ' The compulsory and immediate demand for payment at 
a given moment of a public debt by means of force would 
not produce other than the ruin of the weaker nations and the 
absorption of their Government altogether, with all its inherent 
faculties, by the powerful nations of the earth. 

" ' We do not pretend, neither can we pretend,' he says, 
' that these nations shall occupy an exceptional position in their 
relations with the European Powers, who have the undoubted 
right to protect their subjects as amply as in any other part of 
the globe against persecution or from any injustice they have 
been made victims of. 

" ' The only thing that the Argentine Republic maintains is 
the principle already accepted, that there cannot be European 
territorial expansion in, nor oppression of the people of this 
continent, because their unfortunate financial condition might 
oblige one of them to put off the fulfilment of its obligations. 

" ' The principle which we maintain is that a public debt can- 
not give rise to an armed intervention, and much less to the 
territorial occupation of the soil of American nations by any 
European Power.' " 

Complying with his instructions, Minister Merou left a copy 
of the communication received from his Minister of Foreign 
Relations with the Secretary of State. In his reply Mr. Hay 


did not express assent or dissent to the doctrine of public law 
set forth in the note. He cited to the minister the messages of 
the president of December 13, 1901, and December 2, 1902. 
Secretary Hay stated further that, advocating and adhering in 
practice, in questions concerning itself, to the resort of interna- 
tional arbitration in settlement of controversies not adjustable 
by the orderly treatment of diplomatic negotiation, the Gov- 
ernment of the United States would always be glad to see the 
questions of the justice of claims by one State against another 
growing out of individual wrongs or national obligations, as 
well as the guarantees for the execution of whatever award 
may be made, left to the decision of an impartial arbitration 
tribunal, before which the litigant nations, weak and strong 
alike, may stand as equals in the eye of international law and 
mutual duty. 

The mediation of the United States arises as the good offices 
of a friendly power under the provisions of Articles I, II, III, 
IV, V, and VI of The Hague treaty of July 29, 1899. Under 
the old principles of international law, this form of friendly me- 
diation and intercession would not have been tolerated to the 
extent which is now authorized by this treaty. 

The Monroe Doctrine stage of the correspondence between 
the United States on the one hand, and Great Britain, Germany, 
and Italy on the other, in respect to Venezuela, has never 
taken place. There is a total misconception by a majority of 
the people concerning the nature of the correspondence be- 
tween this government and Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. 
It is popularly understood that this government was engaged 
in asserting the Monroe Doctrine, instead of coming in as a 
friend of both parties, and especially of Venezuela, as it is 
permitted to do under the provisions of The Hague treaty. 

It would be premature for this government to take up a 
discussion of our foreign policy until it had been infringed 
upon by the other powers. Whenever it is thus infringed 
upon by the overthrow of a republic and the substitution of a 
European monarchy in its stead, it then becomes very much 
a matter of discretion and convenience on the part of this 


government as to the time and mode of taking up the subject 
with the offending governments. 

The French and Austrians held Mexico for about six years. 
Maximilian had occupied the throne of Mexico as emperor 
for about a year and a half before the diplomatic correspond- 
ence began in which it was pointed out that the United States 
had a policy which was opposed to such a monarchy. This 
correspondence lasted about two years before it reached such 
an acute stage as to leave no alternative but the evacuation 
of Mexico or war. The United States was so preoccupied 
with its own domestic troubles that it could not with propriety 
or safety take up a discussion of its foreign policy until the 
autumn of 1865. 

The government is entering upon the construction of the 
Panama Canal, and in case its foreign policy is infringed upon 
by any European nation, it would then become purely a ques- 
tion of expediency with this government as to whether it 
would at once take up the subject with such offending nation, 
or whether it would defer the matter until after the completion 
of the canal. 

Germany and Great Britain and Italy agreed to arbitrate 
their differences with Venezuela before The Hague Tribunal, 
and the apprehensions of difficulty from this source happily 
passed away. The Monroe Doctrine feature of this controversy, 
therefore, was never reached. 

The relations between Germany and the United States since 
the Spanish War have year by year become more and more 
strained. The German press and the German chancellor are 
responsible for this more than any other agencies. 

For savage assaults upon America and Americans, the 
world has furnished no parallel to the press of Germany. On 
the other hand, when the German government speaks, it is in 
tones of kindness and of seemingly heartfelt consideration. 
The result of these strained relations has been to cause the 
Americans to imagine and charge all sorts of things against 
Germany, without any adequate proof of their truthfulness. 
The charges are numerous and may be epitomized thus: that 


Germany desired and proposed to unite with Spain against us 
in 1898; that Germany interfered and induced the Landsthing 
of Denmark to reject the treaty between this government and 
Denmark, whereby the Danish West Indian Islands were to be 
ceded to the United States ; that Germany interfered to give us 
trouble with Colombia in concluding a treaty whereby we could 
construct the Panama Canal. It is also said that our naval 
officers are compelled to take unusual precautions to keep 
American and German marines from fighting when they land 
in proximity to each other. The final charge is that the 
recent assault upon Venezuela was upon Germany's initiative, 
and that her real purpose was to subjugate Venezuela, over- 
throw the republic, plant the German Empire upon its ruins, 
and thus defy the United States and destroy the Monroe 

To the American mind, when viewed in connection with the 
situation in southern Brazil, the planting of a German colony 
on the shores of the Caribbean Sea would appear to evince a 
purpose on the part of Germany to one day rule the conti- 
nent of South America. The reaction of such a policy would 
work disastrously for Germany in this hemisphere. It would 
kill the goose which is laying the golden eggs for her in 
southern Brazil. If reciprocally friendly relations are con- 
tinued with Germany, and if confidence in her purpose to 
make no assault upon our foreign policy is restored, she may 
some day be able to market those eggs south of the equator, 
but they would become addled the moment they were carried 
across it. 

Great Britain is the author of the Monroe declaration. She 
outstripped all the nations of Europe in the race for com- 
mercial and maritime supremacy, as a consequence of such 
a policy. Her vast possessions in this hemisphere make it to 
her interest at least to let the Monroe Doctrine alone. The 
other European powers could not be interested to any great 
extent in overthrowing our foreign policy. A revision of the 
principles of international law in respect to coaling and supply 

stations and other matters would benefit them far more than 



the abrogation of our foreign policy, the benefits of which, if 
any, would be appropriated by Great Britain and Germany. 

The mediation negotiations on the part of the United 
States on behalf of Venezuela were carried on by Mr. Bowen, 
our minister to Venezuela, with Great Britain, Germany, and 
Italy. After these negotiations began, Mr. Bowen left Cara- 
cas and went to Washington, where the further negotiations 
were carried on. Offers by the allies were made to submit 
their controversies with Venezuela to arbitration by President 
Roosevelt. A vigorous protest from all parts of the country 
against such a measure was made, and Mr. Roosevelt declined. 
Thereupon it was agreed that the controversy should be left 
to The Hague Tribunal for arbitration and settlement. When 
this point had been reached, the question of raising the block- 
ade came up. It was contended by the allies that the block- 
ade of the Venezuelan ports should not be raised until they 
had security for the payment of whatever might be awarded 
by The Hague Tribunal. 

President Castro of Venezuela offered thirty per cent of the 
customs dues to the creditor nations, without any preference. 
The allies claimed a preference in this thirty per cent, and 
finally abated their claim to twenty per cent preference, which 
was refused. Thereupon negotiations sprang up proposing on 
the part of Venezuela a submission of this right to a prefer- 
ence to The Hague Tribunal. Objections were raised, and 
Germany asserted that a matter of national honor was involved. 
Mr. Bowen, in keeping with the American method of diplomacy, 
was direct, pointed, and outspoken, — in striking contrast to the 
insidious and oblique diplomacy of oriental nations with which 
Europe had been accustomed to come in contact. 

This resulted in a demand by the allies that the negotiations 
in the future should be carried on directly with President 
Roosevelt. This was declined. 

Negotiations continued, however, and on February 10, 1903, 
Great Britain and Italy signed the protocol, referring the 
matter of preferences to The Hague Tribunal. Germany 
deliberated still further, and finally assented to the same 


course, upon the payment of $340,000 of her demands, 
within a brief period. On February 13, 1903, the three allies 
signed a joint protocol with Venezuela and the blockade of 
Venezuelan ports was raised the next day. Thus terminated 
what seemed to be one of the most stupendous assaults upon 
the Monroe Doctrine which has yet taken place, with the 
exception of the similar debt-collecting expedition which 
placed Maximilian on the throne of Mexico. 

Germany should extend to America and Americans the 
same friendship and sympathy which we have always ex- 
tended to her emigrants who have identified their lives and 
fortunes with us. Commercial rivalries should not embar- 
rass our friendly relations. Germany has become insane on 
the subject of the Monroe Doctrine. She overlooks a critical 
period in her own history when the Balance of Power System, 
which is the Monroe Doctrine of Europe, saved her from 
being converted into a province of France. Prussia lay pros- 
trate at the feet of Napoleon after the battle of Konigsberg, 
and subsequently was carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey 
by Napoleon and Alexander at the peace of Tilsit. 

Bismarck was the constant and unwavering friend of the 
United States. No discord was permitted by him to exist 
between the two nations. The present Emperor of Germany 
seems disposed to sustain the Bismarckian policy, but the 
press of Germany has been fomenting discord among the 
people. No nation can be great and powerful by hating 
the United States, and much bad luck can be averted by a 
sympathetic and friendly policy of conciliation and good-will. 
It is to be hoped that the friendship of Germany for the 
United States did not die with Bismarck. It is true that 
Bismarck stigmatized the Monroe Doctrine as " an inter- 
national impertinence." He had taken the mistaken view that 
it was a fungus growth upon American institutions and that 
American statesmen should apply the knife and eradicate it. 
He did not understand that it was one of the foundation stones 
on which the republic was constructed. He had not studied 
the question far enough to know that our foreign policy was 


a condition, and not a sentiment or a theory. He had never 
lived under republican rule to enable him to see clearly the 
distinction between the voice of an absolute monarch and 
the voice of the people. A monarch speaks and the work is 
done. A servant of the people speaks for them, and if he 
fails to express their views he is repudiated. 

Hence it results that even if Germany or several European 
nations in concert should obtain a temporary triumph over 
the United States, either in war or diplomacy, whereby the 
Monroe Doctrine was ignored in whole or in part, it would 
only result in such a reaction in the United States that sooner 
or later all advantages which had been gained by European 
nations would have to be surrendered. Since acquisitions 
contrary to our foreign policy could not be retained, it is use- 
less to acquire them. Any nation which squanders its energy 
and enterprise in attempting to break down our foreign policy 
is simply engaged in sowing the wind to reap many successive 
harvests of the whirlwind. 

The sudden change by the Germans from friendship to 
hatred of Americans is something phenomenal. Bismarck 
had no sooner passed off the stage of action than it was 
found that American pork was making the Germans sick, 
while it was very healthful and digestible in other parts of 
Europe. Germany began to build a great navy, and as the 
navy grew in strength and power, the hatred for Americans 
grew in the same ratio. When the United States became 
involved in the war with Spain, Germany showed a strong 
disposition to take part against us. This Venezuelan affair is 
looked upon as but another step in these hostile proceedings. 
The enlargement of the German navy goes steadily on, not- 
withstanding The Hague treaty and Tribunal, which was to 
reduce the armies and navies of Europe by substituting peace- 
ful settlements of international controversies. Moreover, 
Germany is at peace with Europe, and the presumption is 
that this great navy is being constructed for service in a con- 
flict with the United States. It is not being built to become 
antiquated, and rust and rot upon the sea. 


About the time the Venezuelan blockade was raised, Ernest 
von Wildenbruch, Emperor William's favorite contemporary- 
poet, and sometimes for that reason called the court poet, 
wrote an article on Germany and the Monroe Doctrine, in 
which he said " it was clearly in line with Germany's interest 
and policy to join the United States in maintaining the Doc- 
trine, and expressed the hope that the United States would 
extend its authority over all Latin America." 

Immediately following the raising of the Venezuelan block- 
ade, an American newspaper correspondent interviewed certain 
directors of the Deutsche and Disconto Banks at Berlin, as 
well as a number of large exporters, and found them in favor 
of the recognition of the Monroe Doctrine by Germany. He 
interviewed leading professors in the German universities, and 
German politicians and statesmen and found that they were 
opposed to the views expressed by the bankers and exporters. 

On March 13, 1903, the American correspondent at Berlin 
cabled to the United States the following despatch : 

" German naval experts declare that the proposed increase of 
Uncle Sam's sea strength is a much more serious matter for 
Germany than the establishment of a naval station on the east 
coast of England. This view is shared by the officials of the 
navy department, who cannot conceal from themselves the fact 
that America's enlarged naval programme is chiefly the result 
of the disappointing Venezuelan expedition. No authority is 
permitted to discuss the subject for publication, and there is 
a complete absence of comment in the press in obedience to 
official wishes. A prominent naval strategist in close touch 
with official opinion said to-day : ' Germany's danger from the 
United States lies not in the expansion of the American fleet, 
but in the popular sentiment which has brought about that 
expansion. We contemplate a powerful American navy with 
alarm because of the uses to which popular feeling may at 
any hour compel it to be put. Recent history has convinced 
Germany that no matter how cordial the relations between 
Washington and Berlin, the real factor in the situation is Ameri- 
can public opinion. How to reckon with certainty on that un- 
controllable and capricious element fills us with concern.' ' 


On February 16, 1903, "The Westminster Gazette," in an 
editorial, pointed out that Germany had lost far more than 
she had gained in the Venezuelan matter. The paper said : 

" The chief result of the Venezuelan affair is that the Monroe 
Doctrine emerges with immensely increased authority. Ger- 
many has her £68,000, but she has been made a party to a 
principle which she would willingly have spent a hundred 
times .£68,000 in resisting, for she has accepted the American 
veto to her landing troops or taking territorial guarantees. 
There must be irony for German statesmen in the reflection 
that their eagerness to figure among the creditors of this 
insignificant little State should have entailed consequences so 
entirely beyond their calculations." 

On February 17, 1903, just three days after the Venezuelan 
blockade was raised, Parliament opened with an address from 
the throne by King Edward, who said : 

" My Lords and Gentlemen : 

" My relations with all the foreign powers continue friendly. 
The blockade of the Venezuelan ports has led to negotiations 
for the adjustment of all the matters in dispute. I rejoice that 
a settlement has now been arrived at which has justified the 
blockading powers in bringing all hostile naval operations to 
an immediate close." 

Nothing more was said by the king bearing upon the 
Venezuelan affair. When the king's speech was read in the 
House of Commons on the same day, Sir Henry Campbell- 
Bannerman, the Liberal leader, said : 

" In Venezuela the cloud had happily passed, but it was a 
black cloud, and one which many people thought might have 
been avoided. It might have had dangerous consequences, 
and it was the duty of the country to inquire how it had been 
led into such a difficulty." 

Sir Henry commented on the fact that Germany was not 
mentioned in the king's speech in connection with Venezuela. 
He said " there were people in this country who were of the 


opinion that Great Britain should not associate with Germany 
under any circumstances, but he did not sympathize with that 
view, although he admitted there had been much abuse and 
slander of this country in the German press. The speaker 
was opposed to co-operation with Germany in a matter like 
the Venezuelan imbroglio. Germany was strong, but rough. 
Germany also was not favorable to the Monroe Doctrine. If 
there had ever been a case for arbitration, the Venezuelan 
affair was one, and if this course had been adopted in the first 
place a great precedent would have been established towards 
the peaceful settlement of the international questions." 

The most significant demonstrations took place in the 
House of Lords on the same day, in which Earl Spencer, the 
Liberal leader, and the Duke of Devonshire, the Government 
leader of the House of Lords, voiced the sentiments of them- 
selves and presumably of their parties and constituents. Earl 
Spencer said that " after reading the blue book on Venezuela 
he could only express surprise at the fact that a demand for 
the reference of this business dispute to The Hague Court 
had not been pressed much earlier. However, the speaker 
rejoiced exceedingly that the dispute, which, arising from just 
ground, was petty and might have imperilled Great Britain's 
good relations with the United States, was now passing away, 
and he trusted that the final settlement would tend to establish 
good relations between England, America, and Germany." 

The Duke of Devonshire, in behalf of the government, speak- 
ing at considerable length on the Venezuelan affair, dwelt on 
the possibility of a future difficulty between Venezuela and the 
powers which were concerned in the question, as Venezuela 
at present apparently had no settled government. He trusted, 
however, that the result of the reference to arbitration would 
be satisfactory, and pointed out that the negotiations involved 
an element of risk, and the fact that they had been brought to 
the present stage reflected credit on thdse in charge of them. 

Continuing, the Duke of Devonshire said that " Great Britain 
accepted the Monroe Doctrine unreservedly, but to have ab- 
stained from enforcing claims which she believed to be just 


and essential to her honor would be to make the Monroe Doc- 
trine an object of dislike for every civilized power." 

The words of the Duke of Devonshire that " Great Britain 
accepts the Monroe Doctrine unreservedly " are direct and 
emphatic, and, no doubt, he has stated Great Britain's position 
correctly. This is in striking contrast with the declaration of 
Lord Salisbury in his note to Mr. Olney on the Venezuelan 
boundary question, made about eight years previously. 

The comments of the English press on the Monday follow- 
ing the raising of the blockade were limited. Some of them 
were as follows: 

" The Daily Mail " said : 

" The raising of the blockade of the Venezuelan coast 
will evoke from this country a sigh of relief. England has 
emerged from the incident with no more than moral damage, 
though needless friction has been raised with the United 
States. British prestige has been lowered. Notwithstanding 
the manner in which England has been attacked and traduced 
by German statesmen and German generals, the British navy 
has been placed at the disposal of Germany. The settlement 
of this miserable affair cannot, under the circumstances, be 
paraded as a triumph for British diplomacy." 

" The Daily Chronicle " said : 

" The news that the protocols have been signed will bring a 
sense of relief and security to this country, which the govern- 
ment, who regarded the question as a suitable subject for after- 
dinner jesting, will no doubt fail to understand. But one 
thing the government will be forced to understand, that is the 
satisfaction which the country feels at the fortunate issue of 
the dispute will not lead it to condone the recklessness and 
the incapacity which created a dangerous crisis from compar- 
ative ease." 

" The Daily News " said : 

" The English taxpayers will be delighted to observe that 
the Germans receive almost exactly a dozen times as much as 
we do. That is a startling illustration of the humble position 


to which our Ministers have been reduced by association with 
Emperor William, but both sums are so trifling that amaze- 
ment is the only feeling with which we can now look back 
upon the miserable muddle from which we at last emerge. 
The alliance between Germany and England for collecting 
debts and compensations in Venezuela must be reckoned as 
one of the least worthy exhibitions of international friendliness 
that the world has yet seen." 

The following is a despatch from St. Petersburg, dated 
February 19, 1903, to the American newspapers: 

" Throughout the Venezuelan controversy the Russian press 
was emphatically in favor of America. The papers frequently 
published editorials defending the Monroe Doctrine, though one 
of them said that while they are anxious to see the success of 
American diplomacy, they feared that ere long American pres- 
tige would suffer and German prestige would be increased." 

During the period between the bombardment of Puerto 
Cabello and the raising of the blockade, the Monroe Doctrine 
was under discussion over the whole civilized globe. It was 
found that British America and Australia were in favor of it, 
and the prevailing sentiment throughout Great Britain was in 
opposition to any attack upon it. If Germany should adopt 
the suggestion of Herr von Wildenbruch and her bankers and 
business men, it would enable her to work out a more glorious 
destiny for herself on other and more peaceful lines. On the 
other hand, the policy of coercion has never been successful 
against the United States, and any attempt at coercion would 
inevitably prove a costly failure. 

The proceedings of the Reichstag of Germany on March 19, 
1903, were reported from Berlin on the same date. They are 
important as being expressions given out by the government 
of Germany through the chancellor of the empire. This re- 
port is as follows: 

" In the Reichstag to-day, during the discussion of the for- 
eign office section of the budget, Baron von Hertling, Centre 
party, referred to the Venezuelan affair. He said public 


opinion at first demanded action, since Germany's honor 
seemed engaged, but after action had been taken, apparently 
with success, public opinion changed and doubts arose as to 
whether it was necessary for Germany to risk so much." 

Chancellor von Biilow replied, saying: 

" The Venezuelan matter was from the very first neither a 
question of territorial acquisition nor of glory for us, but of a 
settlement through extraordinary means of business which had 
been complicated by the debtor's untrustworthiness, whereby, 
of course, the maintenance of our honor played a part. We 
were able to establish our claim only through common action 
with England and Italy. It was not merely a question of 
arranging the matter in hand, but giving a warning which 
would serve for the future. The mere money standpoint must 
not control in such cases. We dare not submit to breaches 
of the law. Otherwise we would not need ships or cannons. 
The Venezuelan case was exceptional. We shall not always 
dispose of such matters through force, but our action will 
depend upon special circumstances. Proof that force was 
necessary here is seen from the fact that the English govern- 
ment also resorted to forcible measures ; whereas it is a well 
known principle of England's commercial policy that every- 
body investing private capital abroad does so upon his risk. 

" We found ourselves in a dilemma, but nobody can re- 
proach us with acting without sobriety and calmness. We 
had to take care that our relations with other powers should 
not be disturbed through this relatively subordinate matter. 
There was no lack of attempts to create such a disturbance. 
I here refer, of course, to no government, but to the press, which 
attempted to engender ill will between the governments at 
London, Berlin and Rome, on one side, and the United States 
on the other. The most unfounded and silliest rumors were 
circulated, as if we were about to land troops or violate the 
integrity of the South American republic. In such lying 
legends one American paper was especially great. It in- 
vented an official of its own in the foreign office, who informed 
the paper that we wanted to swallow Venezuela first, then 
Colombia, and finally Brazil." 


This statement of the chancellor called forth loud laughter. 
He continued : 

" These perfidious attempts to sow discord were frustrated 
through the loyalty of the cabinets and the confidence in 
the honesty of our policy. These fantastic and malicious 
stories, to our satisfaction, failed of their intended effect. 
Our relations with England and the United States remained 
intact, and our demands against Venezuela are to be regarded 
as accepted, according to the protocol settling the controversy." 

Herr von Bulow then summarized the terms of the protocol, 
mentioning that Venezuela had already paid the first install- 
ment of the German indemnity, and said : 

" The claims of the second have not yet been subjected to 
investigation. The Venezuelan government is ready to co- 
operate in a joint commission at Caracas in investigating and 
fixing the amounts of these claims. The third class claims 
will be settled. The cost of the blockade can not yet be 
stated, but it is small. We have decided not to make a demand 
that Venezuela pay an indemnity to cover the costs of the 
blockade, owing to the rather hopeless financial condition of 
that country. We attained what we wanted, and what under 
the circumstances was attainable. The action against Venezuela 
was inaugurated without a fanfare of trumpets, with all neces- 
sary vigor, and was carried to the end without weakness and 
within expedient bounds." 

Professor Hasse of Leipsic University, Pan-German and 
National Liberal, said : 

" I am not satisfied with this settlement of the Venezuelan 
affair. A formal explanation has not occurred. The moral 
effect of our co-operation with other powers and inviting the 
intermediation of America will be to increase America's rep- 
utation, while our reputation sinks. I attribute to American 
intervention the hostile attitude of the Venezuelans. The be- 
havior of our Minister Sternberg has been of such a character 
that the United States should pay his salary. I refer to his 
well-known interview in which he even censured the late Prince 
Bismarck's policy as being antiquated." 


Chancellor von Biilow, in the course of a second speech, 
replied to Professor Hasse's assertion that Germany could 
have achieved more in Venezuela. He said : 

" Professor Hasse is not satisfied with material satisfaction. 
He wants a special act of expiation. I should like to know 
what the professor had in mind? Does he wish President 
Castro to send an expiatory prince? I admit I gftt enough 
with the China expiatory prince." Loud laughter followed 
the chancellor's last remark. Continuing, the chancellor 
rejected Lord Rosebery's statement in the British House of 
Lords that Germany got twelve fold more from Venezuela 
than England. He added that Lord Rosebery's calculation 
was mathematically and politically incorrect. "The advan- 
tages have been pretty equally distributed generally, and in 
the Venezuelan affair in particular. According to my opinion, 
we got all out of Venezuela that the circumstances permitted.'' 

The remainder of the chancellor's speech in the Reichstag 
was devoted to other matters, among them to an endorsement 
of the policy of Bismarck. Whether Count von Biilow pur- 
sues a Bismarckian or a Machiavelian policy, the result in 
this country will be the same. The people of the United 
States do not put their trust in European premiers. They 
are governed by what European nations do, and not by what 
they say. They will continue to judge of our relations with 
Germany by the temper and spirit of her people, by the ever 
increasing size and efficiency of her navy, and by the pomp 
and circumstance with which she follows her constables into 
this hemisphere to collect small notes which have gone to 

No one who views our relations with Germany in the light 
of what has recently happened in so many ways, including 
the Manila and Venezuelan incidents, can truthfully say that 
those relations are not strained. Germany signed The Hague 
treaty in 1899, which was to have led up to the disarmament 
of Europe, and proceeded without delay to spend millions an- 
nually on the increase of her navy. The meaning of these 
two events, when considered together by men of ordinary 


understanding, is peace in Europe and war in America, from 
the standpoint from which Americans view German ambitions 
and purposes. 

Count von Bulow in that part of his speech against the 
American press mentioned " The New York Herald " by name. 
His attack upon it was unjust and unwarranted. On the 
other hand, that able and patriotic journal performed a great 
and valuable service to the United States during the Venezuelan 
crisis, for it stripped the mask from the face of Bismarck's 
successor, and exposed his insidious diplomacy. It pointed 
out the incongruity in the voice of Jacob and the hand of 

Emperor William is very popular in the United States. He 
maintains in his life and character the best traditions of the 
Hohenzollern family. They were all distinguished for the 
splendor of their achievements, the simplicity, manliness, and 
uprightness of their lives. Moreover, the emperor is looked 
upon as a statesman of a high order, and a friend of the 
United States. Americans can become reconciled to him much 
more readily than they can to his chancellor. 

The generous gift from the emperor of the statue of 
Frederick the Great was accepted by the American people 
with sentiments of gratitude and appreciation. Frederick the 
Great was himself a friend of Washington. He presented him 
a beautiful sword with the inscription, " From the oldest soldier 
to the greatest." 

No duplicity can be seen in the position of Great Britain 
after the mere stage effect of her performance has passed 
away. Her people and her statesmen are, with regard to us, 
frank, direct, unequivocal. The manly utterances of Eng- 
land's premier in Liverpool are in striking contrast with the 
melodramatic performance of Germany's chancellor in the 
Reichstag. The one in a statesmanlike way gave voice to 
the sentiments of his government and people, while the other 
performed his part on the world's stage very cleverly, and 
became the recipient of the applause of its galleries. 

Within a few days after Parliament convened as before 


stated, Mr. Balfour, premier of Great Britain, made a speech 
in the city of Liverpool to an appreciative audience, which was 
enthusiastic in its applause. 

When he said that the Monroe Doctrine has no enemies in 
England, he was loudly cheered. This fact tends to show 
that the people of England are not only friendly, but are in 
favor of our foreign policy. 

Mr. Balfour's speech was as follows: 

" Now let those who think that we have unnecessarily or 
recklessly done anything to touch the susceptibilities of that 
great English-speaking republic remember that the govern- 
ment of the United States of America has, from the beginning, 
been taken into our confidence with regard to every stage of 
this dispute. We have had no secrets from them, we desire to 
have no secrets from them. There really has been no stage 
of the whole proceedings in which we should not gladly have 
welcomed the assistance of the president of the United States 
as arbitrator upon the questions in dispute. Is it not absurd, 
when these things are stated, to suppose that we have shown 
ourselves reckless or indifferent to the United States? 

" We know that public opinion is naturally sensitive upon 
what is known as the Monroe Doctrine. But the Monroe 
Doctrine has no enemies in this country that I know of. We 
welcome any increase of the influence of the United States of 
America upon the great Western Hemisphere. We desire no 
colonization, we desire no alteration in the balance of power, 
we desire no acquisition of territory. 

" We have not the slightest intention of interfering with the 
mode of government of any portion of that continent. The 
Monroe Doctrine, therefore, is really not in the question at 
all. I go further, and I say that, as far as I am concerned, I 
believe it would be a great gain to civilization if the United 
States of America were more actively to interest itself in mak- 
ing arrangements by which these constantly recurring diffi- 
culties between European powers and certain States in South 
America could be avoided. They are difficulties which are 
constantly recurring, but they cannot be avoided. I am afraid 
Lord Rosebery himself got into one of them, and one of his 


predecessors. As long as the canons of international relations 
which prevail between the great European powers and the 
United States of America are not followed in South America, 
these things will occur ; and the United States of America can 
perform no greater task in the cause of civilization than by- 
doing its best to see that the international law is observed, and 
by upholding all that the European powers and the United 
States have recognized as the admitted principles of interna- 
tional comity. The idea that we have ever by our action shown 
ourselves insensible to their susceptibilities or that we "have 
not been anxious if possible to work with them, or to show 
them our whole hand, let that idea be absolutely dismissed." 1 

Notwithstanding all that Mr. Balfour has said, the truthful- 
ness of which we concede, yet there is an impression among 
Americans amounting to a conviction, that Great Britain was 
fully advised by Germany that it was her purpose in this 
demonstration against Venezuela to test in some measure our 
fidelity and devotion to the Monroe Doctrine- Our impres- 
sion further is that Great Britain imparted some inspiration to 
Germany in this enterprise. On the whole, we think that Ger- 
many came out with more money and rather more reputation 
than Great Britain. 

The United States should endeavor to reconcile Germany to 
our traditional foreign policy. We want no quarrel with the 
Germans. We love the Germans for the good American citi- 
zens they have made. We love them for their industry 
and frugality, for their love of home, for their pride of race. 

It is creditable to Great Britain that her statesmen and 
people are heartily ashamed of the petty and subordinate part 
she played in the demonstration against the sick man of Latin 

Et tu, Italia, attempting to devour your own offspring ! Niobe 
weeps for your progeny, who left their native land and the 
virtuous Sabine women who made their forefathers great, to 
come to this hemisphere and marry squaws and wenches and 
assimilate to the aborigines. 

1 Chicago Tribune, February, 1903. 


Mr. Balfour's suggestion that " the United States will more 
actively interest itself in making arrangements whereby these 
constantly recurring difficulties between European powers and 
certain States in South America could be avoided " is a good 

One of the noteworthy circumstances connected with the 
Venezuelan incident is the fact that the three leading nations 
involved in the affair have seen fit so recently after its occur- 
rence to become profuse in their protestations of friendship 
and good-will towards the United States. The impression pre- 
vails that they protested too much ; that their declarations 
were more or less factitious ; that the flowers which bloom 
over the national garden walls are artificial. The soft phrase 
of diplomacy is very proper in its place; the blandishments 
of official etiquette and courtesy are all commendable, but it 
will require something more substantial than all these things 
to turn the people away from their convictions and their 

Public opinion in the United States is moulded by the people, 
and not by their servants. The servant is himself one of the 
people, and there is but little difference in his ability to influ- 
ence and control public opinion whether he be performing the 
menial duties of a porter in the post-office, or the more exalted 
duties of president. The Spanish-American War is a striking 
illustration of this fact. The people compelled McKinley and 
his administration to go to war against their will. British 
statesmen are fairly well informed concerning these conditions, 
but German statesmen are as ignorant of them as their ances- 
tors were of the situation in this hemisphere five centuries ago. 
It is not because Germans are less intelligent than the English, 
for they are just as intelligent, but Germany has been wholly 
engrossed in the consideration of European questions and 
economic problems, while Great Britain has been dealing with 
the American problems for centuries, and with the United 
States for more than a century. The two wars she has waged 
and the numerous other wars which have been narrowly averted 
have instructed her somewhat concerning the difference between 


a monarch of flesh and an ideal despot called Public Opinion, 

whose person no one can touch, whose throne no one can ap- 
proach, and whose mandates none dare disobey. Germany, 
therefore, if she actually desires to be on friendly terms with 
the United States, should become acquainted with the char- 
acter of this tyrant who forms his opinions and prejudices 
from what comes to him from the great body of the people, 
and not from complimentary words which have been addressed 
to his servants by other rulers and courts. 1 

1 The material of this chapter was obtained chiefly from the daily journals 
during and immediately after the Venezuelan imbroglio with the allies. 



It has been pointed out elsewhere that The Hague treaty 
of 1899, and the treaty which was supplementary thereto 
made at the convention in the City of Mexico of January, 
1902, did not go far enough to reach the vital questions by 
which the internal peace of the several republics in Spanish 
America is secured and preserved. 

The revolutionary and anarchical condition of the Spanish- 
American republics, which has marked their course since 
they became independent of Spain, has demonstrated that it 
is necessary for the United States to exert its influence to 
prevent these conditions as far as practicable, without violat- 
ing our general non-intervention policy. We interfered in 
the affairs of Cuba because the interests of civilization and 
humanity demanded it. A high sense of duty demands that 
we take some action that will give stability to government 
and security for life and property, peace and order among 
the people of those republics. 

We have revolutions, too, every year or two in the United 
States, but they are the peaceful and bloodless revolutions of 
the ballot-box. They are those pleasant and harmless revo- 
lutions which keep alive that eternal vigilance which is the 
price of liberty. The politician who goes down in these 
revolutions does not thereupon raise an army and attack the 
government or some neighboring republic, as is done in 
Spanish America. He simply takes up again the burden 
of life where he partially laid it down when the campaign 
opened, and goes to work as if nothing had happened, with 
the determination to make the best of a peaceful and quiet 
life, with a purpose either to abandon politics entirely, or 


to wait quietly and patiently until the whirligig of time 
turns things his way. The disappointed office-seeker in the 
United States may become a tramp, but he never is the leader 
of a revolution, for he would have no followers. The Spanish 
Americans seem to be wholly wanting in that form of disci- 
pline which makes our political upheavals so harmonious, so 
jolly, so harmless. 

These republics have enjoyed nearly eighty years of free- 
dom, and yet, with the exception of Mexico, Argentina, and 
Chile, seem more and more given over to anarchy and revo- 
lution than ever. 

The assertion of the Monroe Doctrine by this government 
forces upon it the correlative duty of devising means for 
preventing revolutions, internecine strifes and wars between 
these commonwealths, which would have freed themselves 
from these conditions long ago by putting themselves under 
the protection of some one or more of the monarchies of 
Europe, if they had not been prevented from so doing by 
the Monroe Doctrine. The United States cannot any longer 
look idly on and see these republics laid waste, and the 
people debauched by the annual and semi-annual revolu- 
tions which take place on the continent of South America 
and in Central America. It is a fearful responsibility which 
thus rests upon the United States, but it is one that must 
be met delicately and courageously. 

It will not do for this government to intermeddle in these 
wars and strifes and take sides with one or the other of these 
countries. The United States must place itself on higher 
and better ground than to become itself a party to these 

Most of the civil commotions which have afflicted the 
Spanish-American republics for the last seventy-five years 
have had their origin in petty and trivial causes. Duress 
and fraud in elections whereby the will of the people has 
been defeated at the polls are prolific causes of revolutions, 
which have been very largely produced by men who had more 
ambition than patriotism. At the end of these revolts it is 


found that the cause of human freedom and of civil and reli- 
gious liberty has not been advanced in most cases. It has 
generally been retarded. Among a self-governing people 
changes should be brought about peacefully by the ballot, 
not violently by the sword. When wrong triumphs the re- 
sort should be to education, not to arms. 

Republics do not perish because the best men are not 
called to rule and govern them. The best men do not 
govern any country. The United States is governed by its 
mediocrity, but it is governed well. The best men seldom 
participate in the affairs of government except when they 
have nothing to share but its trials and dangers. 

The liberties of the people are not destroyed because re- 
publics are sometimes ruled by malefactors. This only fills 
the voters with indignation and a desire to bury these male- 
factors as the snow-flakes which fall so gently on our north- 
western borders bury Mother Earth under white hills. 

On the other hand, in times of revolution, the liberties of 
the people are always in peril, and often destroyed. It re- 
quires years for the commotions of revolution to subside into 
the natural and peaceful order of affairs. These years, too, 
are saturnalia of private debauchery and public shame. 

Something is necessary to be done to prevent revolutions 
and civil commotions. Any remedy for the specific preven- 
tion of civil wars among the republics themselves would 
probably be difficult to devise, and still more difficult to 

The responsibility rests with the United States to see that 
the Monroe Doctrine shall not be a shield to protect anarchy 
on the one hand or military despotism on the other among 
the Spanish republics. 

It is possible that arbitration in some form may be applied 
to civil commotions, and if elections are free and fairly 
conducted this ought to afford a general remedy for civil 

Arbitration may some day make such progress that the 
Spanish republics may have some inter-republic tribunal 


which will authoritatively decide upon the freedom and fair- 
ness of elections as well as the title to the chief executive 
office, where that title is in controversy. 

The parties in power in the Spanish republics have usually 
exercised an undue influence against those who were in favor 
of a change of presidents and policies. A form of politico- 
military despotism is the result, and if the people of the 
Spanish republics can become emancipated from these con- 
ditions by arbitration or otherwise, they will have taken a 
long stride in the direction of the suppression of civil com- 
motions and revolutions. 

The greatest impediment to success in Democratic rule in 
Latin America grows out of a want of homogeneity of the 
masses of the people and their inability to exercise the fran- 
chise of sovereignty. A glance at the character of some of 
the populations of these republics will serve to convince most 
persons that the nations composed of these mixed populations 
are incapable of self-government. A few samples of the 
nature and character of these populations will serve to illus- 
trate this view. 

Of Bolivia the population consists of a mixture of various 
races, chiefly the Spaniards with the Indian natives. A por- 
tion consists of the descendants of Negro slaves, who are also 
mixed with the Indians. 

Colombia in 1857 had one million, five hundred and twenty- 
seven thousand whites and cross-breeds, four hundred and 
forty-seven thousand cross-breeds in which Indian blood pre- 
dominated, ninety thousand Africans, four hundred and forty- 
six thousand Indian and Negro cross-breeds. 

The population of Mexico is less than ten million, which 
is divided as follows: 

First: Full blood Indians, five million. 

Second: Mestizoes (half-caste Indians and whites), three 

Third: Creoles (whites of Spanish descent), one hundred 
and fifty thousand. 

Fourth: Gotchupines (Spaniards by birth), fifty thousand. 


Fifth : Other Europeans and Americans, one hundred 

Sixth : Full blood Negroes, ten thousand. 

Seventh : Zambos (mixed Indians and Africans), forty-five 

Eighth: Mulattoes, five thousand. 

In Venezuela the population, according to an official esti- 
mate for January i, 1886, was two million, one hundred and 
ninety-eight thousand, three hundred and twenty. The pure 
white population is estimated at only one per cent of the 
whole, the remainder of the population being Negroes and 
Indians, Mulattoes and Zambos. 

A calculation based on the partial census of 1846 gave 
Nicaragua a population of three hundred thousand, of whom 
about one hundred thousand were pure blood Indians, one 
hundred and fifty thousand half-castes, Mestizoes, Zambos, 
and Mulattoes, twenty thousand Negroes, and thirty thousand 
whites. The whites have shown a tendency to diminish for 
a century or more. 

Guatemala has a population of about one million, two hun- 
dred thousand, of whom seven hundred and twenty thousand 
are Indians, three hundred thousand Ladinos, one hundred and 
eighty thousand whites, and about one thousand foreigners. 

In Honduras the population is mostly Indian, and in some 
districts it is difficult to say whether the whites have degen- 
erated to the level of the aborigines in habits of life, or the 
Indians have raised themselves to the standard of the whites. 
Along some portions of the coast the population consists of a 
mixture of Indians and Negroes called Sambos, or Zambos. 

Of the population of Salvador about one-fifth are white 
or have a preponderance of white blood, one-third are pure 
Indians, while the remainder are of mixed white and In- 
dian blood. The number of Negroes and Mulattoes is 

The population of Costa Rica is a mixture of the European 
with the Indian and African. There are but few families of 
pure Spanish descent remaining. 


The foregoing specific information concerning the popu- 
lation of certain republics is quite sufficient to illustrate in 
a greater or less degree the conditions existing in all of 
Spanish America. 

A scheme of federation of these Latin republics might be 
framed on a basis that the confederated republics were only 
united for the mutual and common purpose of preventing 
insurrections and revolutions against their respective consti- 
tuted authorities. For example, the five republics which 
once constituted the republic of Central America could by 
treaty arrange some form of arbitration of matters which 
would otherwise terminate in insurrection or revolution. 
They could also stipulate in such treaty for some co-opera- 
tion and assistance against any revolutionary bodies which 
would not submit their differences to an arbitration tribunal 
and abide by the award. As the validity of elections is the 
prolific cause of revolutions, this tribunal could pass upon 
the validity of the election of president and vice-president 
in each and all of them, and could stipulate by such treaty 
for some effective mode of enforcing the award. 

A limited federation of republics on this line would go 
very far toward giving peace among them in connection with 
the international arbitration tribunals which have been pro- 
vided for at The Hague, and later by the Second Interna- 
tional Conference of American States. 

The five republics which originally constituted Central 
America could form one federated group, while the repub- 
lics which constituted the Republic of Colombia, under Simon 
Bolivar, could constitute another group, and on similar lines 
all the Latin-American republics could federate themselves 
into four or five groups for mutual protection against insur- 
rections and revolutions. These limited federations would 
naturally lead up to more intimate relations, whereby it 
would become possible for them to confederate together for 
all general purposes of government by groups, and thus be- 
come influential and powerful. 

Another convention similar to the one which assembled in 


the City of Mexico October 22, 1901, could take up, discuss, 
and perhaps arrange the basis of such a federation as is here 

There might be objections raised to these federations on 
the ground that local jealousies and rivalries might render 
them not entirely free from bias or prejudice in giving 
their decisions or awards. This could be obviated by hav- 
ing the matter arbitrated by disinterested republics which 
did not belong to the federation, with the provision that the 
federated republics should all join in the enforcement of the 
award or decision when it was once rendered. 

The treaties at The Hague and the City of Mexico have 
practically accomplished the federation of the world. An- 
other treaty could accomplish the federation of the Latin- 
American republics for the purpose of putting an end to 
insurrections and revolutions. 

The Latin-American republics all have to deal with the 
difficult race-problem. The white, Indian, and Negro races 
constitute the body of the people of these republics. These 
races are in part separate and distinct, and in part they are 
blended into various degrees and shades of miscegenation. 

The fathers of the Republic of the United States did not 
consider either the Indian or the Negro as any part of the 
body of the people of the United States. They drove out 
the one and enslaved the other. When they resolved that 
all men were born free and equal, contemporary history shows 
that they meant white men. 

Both Indians and Negroes have taken important and lead- 
ing parts in military and civic affairs in Latin America. 
Quite a large amount of the troubles among these re- 
publics grows out of race prejudices and proclivities. It 
seems probable that this is the great and fundamental cause 
of the anarchy and military despotisms which alternate 

Latin America has been compelled to deal with the race 
problem in its worst form. The three races have failed to 
co-ordinate in these republics as fully as did Caesar and 


Pompey and Crassus, who had each a party; but the common- 
wealth had no party. 

Race triumvirates in a democracy do not succeed any more 
than a triumvirate of ambitious and self-seeking men. It is 
comparatively easy for each of the latter to sink out of sight 
his own selfish interests for the sake of the common weal, 
but it is impossible for the former to secure race abnegation, 
or to suppress race competition, or even to still the clamor 
of faction. 

When these republics are in a state of revolution they are 
often compelled to make default in the payment of their cur- 
rent obligations, including the interest on the public debt. 

Now that tribunals for peaceful settlements of international 
difficulties are made a part of international law, it only re- 
mains to clothe the tribunals with the necessary powers to 
enforce the law. When Venezuela was in a state of revolu- 
tion she defaulted in the payment of her obligations in Great 
Britain, Germany, Italy, the United States, France, and quite 
a number of European nations. When these defaults take 
place the appointment of a receiver in many, if not in all 
cases, would result in the settlement of the obligations, and 
in suppressing the rebellion as well. 

The receivership itself becomes a form of mediation simi- 
lar to that which is secured by The Hague treaty. The 
receiver comes in as a disinterested third party between the 
warring factions, and in most, if not in all cases, an immedi- 
ate peace would result. If an immediate peace is not the 
result of the appointment of the receiver, the creditor na- 
tions would be powerful enough to secure peace in a very 
summary manner. 

If a receivership had been resorted to for Venezuela as 
soon as she defaulted in the payment of her obligations, an 
immediate peace would have resulted. The receiver could 
have conducted the affairs of Venezuela until the disturb- 
ances had been quieted and commercial, planting and manu- 
facturing enterprises had resumed, and then he could in a 
time of profound peace have held an election, and have 


turned over the entire machinery of the government to the 
newly chosen officials selected by the free choice of the 

There are many cases in which it would be proper to ap- 
point the receiver before any default in payment had been 
made, as a simple means of terminating a revolution or 

In case a third Conference of American States should 
take place it might be well not only to secure arbitration 
of these factional or party difficulties, but also to clothe a 
tribunal with authority, upon the petition of one or more 
creditor nations showing a good and sufficient cause, to ap- 
point a temporary receiver to take charge of the affairs of the 
republic for a limited time and discharge its pecuniary obli- 
gations, restore peace and order, and then in due time turn 
over the government to the newly selected officials, chosen 
by the people in the legal and constitutional mode. 

There are other occasions in which the appointment of a 
temporary receiver would be of great value in securing peace. 
In many cases the administration which is in power uses all 
its patronage and power to secure the election of its succes- 
sor. This interference on the part of the administration in 
charge of the machinery of the government is generally so 
powerful and so unscrupulous that it is irresistible, and the 
election is found to result in a defeat of the obvious will of 
the people as expressed at the ballot-box. 

In States and sections where the people are well organized 
and able to defeat the administration, the officials in charge 
of the machinery of government will circulate false informa- 
tion concerning revolutionary movements which never took 
place, in order to afford an opportunity to send military forces 
into such districts to suppress these alleged rebellions, the 
real purpose being to thwart the will of the people at the 
polls by either securing a coerced vote or a fraudulent 
return. The sequel to all this tyranny and fraud is a 

If a receiver could be put in charge of the government 


pending a presidential election campaign so as to prevent 
an improper use of its patronage and power, and thereby 
secure a fair election, it would go very far towards crushing 
out revolutions in the Latin-American republics. 

Some plan might be adopted whereby a limited number of 
republics might determine when the crisis had arisen in 
which a receivership should be adopted. If such a power 
were conferred on the United States, Mexico, Argentina, 
Chile, and Brazil in respect to the Central American re- 
publics and those of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, 
and Bolivia, it would leave but little ground for revolutions 
to stand on. 

This classification is made simply by way of illustration. 
Other republics could have a similar arrangement. In many 
cases, no doubt, the administration would gladly submit to 
a receivership on the suggestion of the United States alone 
if a scheme of that character should once be devised whereby 
an administration could honorably and properly thus tempo- 
rarily surrender the management of affairs. 

At the very beginning of revolutionary movements it should 
be the duty of some one or more of the disinterested repub- 
lics, and particularly of those federated in the manner stated, 
to tender their good offices of mediation in manner and form 
as provided for in The Hague treaty for mediation between 
nations. Such controversies as the mediators cannot settle 
should be referred to an American tribunal for adjustment. 

No scheme of mediation between a republic and a revolu- 
tionary party against it has ever been devised, much less has 
any scheme of arbitration been suggested, but it will be found 
that when such a scheme has once been inaugurated it will 
soon become irresistible and quite as practicable as the medi- 
ation and arbitration devised by The Hague Convention for 
international controversies. 

Legislation by the respective republics in furtherance of 
the mediation and arbitration scheme would crush out a great 
many obstacles which now seem to be insurmountable. 

The part taken by the United States in the Venezuelan 


controversy with the European allies has revealed this govern- 
ment to the republics south of us in a proper light. It has 
shown them that the people of the United States are sincerely 
and profoundly interested in the success of republican govern- 
ment throughout this hemisphere. It has shown them that 
our purpose among them is not that of conquest, but of sym- 
pathy, co-operation, and assistance. 

An erroneous idea has for a long time existed among many 
of these republics, that it was a question of only a short time 
when they would be seized by the United States and become 
part of our territory. Their motto consequently has been, 
" Let us eat, drink, and be merry to-day, for to-morrow we 
become colonies of the United States." 

The co-operation of the United States, Mexico, Chile, 
Argentina, and Brazil, in a policy which would put any or 
all of the other Latin-American republics in the hands of 
receivers and retain them there until discharged by the con- 
currence of these five republics would soon bring revolutions 
to an end. 

If the five little republics which once constituted the Re- 
public of Central America were in the hands of receivers 
for a considerable period in which an opportunity would be 
afforded to recuperate their energies, re-establish their credit, 
and reduce their rate of interest, steps could be taken to 
bring these five republics again into a union called the 
Republic of Central America. 

These five republics as now administered seem incapable 
of taking the initiatory steps to bring about a reconfedera- 
tion. The receivers could take these initiatory steps under 
the direction of the more powerful supervising republics. 
The same thing could be done to bring back into one re- 
public the existing republics which once constituted the 
Republic of Colombia under Simon Bolivar. 

Receiverships terminating in confederations which would 
give to Latin America a few large and powerful republics 
would put out of business permanently a large number of 
professional liberators. 


Receiverships and federation are the direct roads to peace 
and prosperity in these weak and small republics. The 
United States stands in a favorable position to take the ini- 
tiative in bringing about these reforms. In suggesting re- 
ceiverships among republics where self-government has proved 
a failure it is not our purpose to favor any importation among 
them of rulers and officials. We want no carpet-bag govern- 
ments for Latin America to hold the people down by bayo- 
nets while the beggarly elements of reconstruction run riot 
through their prostrate commonwealths. 

On the other hand, it will be found that there are plenty 
of honest, cultured, and capable men within the bounds of 
each republic to attend to the affairs of government in all 
details. These tax-payers and men of character should be 
selected to act as receivers and aid in re-establishing self- 
government upon a solid and enduring basis. Ballot reforms 
and a regulation of the election system could be inaugurated 
under the receiverships, while an inter-republic tribunal 
similar to The Hague Tribunal to judicially dispose of many 
factional controversies would add to the usefulness of a re- 
ceivership system. 



There are a number of occasions in which the Monroe 
Doctrine has been asserted, and some occasions in which 
any assertion of it was omitted or neglected altogether. 

Geographers, in dividing the globe into hemispheres, have 
placed the dividing line twenty degrees west of Greenwich. 
This throws all of Europe and Africa and the greater part of 
Asia into the Eastern Hemisphere. 

The Western Hemisphere contains the continents of North 
and South America, Greenland, a part of Iceland, a part of 
Siberia, including a portion of Kamschatka and one-half of 
each of the polar regions. It also contains a large number 
of islands, some of which, like the West Indies, are near to 
us, while others are widely scattered. 

Among the distant islands of the Western Hemisphere 
may be mentioned the Cape Verde, the South Shetland, the 
Samoan group, the Hawaiian group, the Fiji group, and the 
New Zealand islands. Some of the questions which present 
themselves to the American citizen and statesman are as to 
what the duties of the government of the United States 
would be in respect to the Monroe Doctrine in its applica- 
tion to the colonization and government of these remote 
islands and sections. There are ice-bound regions so worth- 
less in an economic point of view and so dreary in their 
isolation that our government could feel no interest in them. 
There are islands of the Western Hemisphere so inconse- 
quential and so remote from the lines of ocean traffic that 
our ships would never visit them. The question is, in case 
European governments should colonize these regions, some 
of which are inhabited by cannibals and naked savages, and 


should they, by their control and management, dedicate them 
to Christianity and to progress, would it be the duty of the 
United States to assert the Monroe Doctrine, and, if neces- 
sary, go to war with all Europe in its vindication ? There 
can be but one answer to this question, and that a negative 

We will refer here briefly to some of the practices of this 
government on this question, and in order to avoid partisan 
bias or prejudice take our illustrations from the practices of 
both the Democratic and Republican parties. 

In the year 1840, during the administration of Martin Van 
Buren, the islands of New Zealand, and in 1871, during the 
administration of General Grant, the Fiji Islands, passed 
under the control of Great Britain. They were peopled by 
cannibals. Great Britain has colonized them and they are 
now the homes of industry, culture, and refinement. 

Here are two striking examples of the construction of the 
Monroe Doctrine in the same manner by the government 
when respectively administered by each of the great politi- 
cal parties of the country. These two acts of colonization 
by Great Britain seem to have passed unnoticed by our gov- 
ernment. Not even so much as a protest was offered. The 
Fiji Island group passed under the dominion of Great Britain 
only four years after the expulsion of the French from 

America was settled by Europeans, and Americans gen- 
erally are descendants of European immigrants. Not many 
years since, a large number of the northwestern States had 
salaried agents residing in New York whose business it was 
to meet European immigrants on their arrival at Castle 
Garden and induce them to locate in the States represented 
by such agents. Every nation of Europe is represented in 
the citizenship of every State in the Union, and in some 
States these representatives number many thousands. Every 
nationality of Europe is well represented in official stations 
in the United States. Europeans who become citizens re- 
tain all their sacred memories of the fatherland. They are 


encouraged to do so, and all that is good and beautiful in 
their manners and customs is adopted by the Americans, as 
well as many other things that are not so good and beautiful. 

If Europeans would understand Americans and the char- 
acter of our civilization in the United States of America they 
must study our early history. 

Columbus discovered America in 1492, and while the 
South American continent soon thereafter became peopled 
by Europeans in search of gold and adventure, the North 
American continent remained the exclusive habitation of 
the Indian for more than a century, with the exception of 
a small colony in Florida. 

The pilgrims on the " Mayflower" landed at Plymouth Rock 
in December, 1620. With the exception of a small English 
colony at Jamestown, which died out and in part returned to 
England and became dispersed, the Plymouth Rock colony 
was the first. 

Near the end of the sixteenth century a number of poor 
dissenters scattered through the north of England, espe- 
cially in the counties of Nottingham, Lincoln, and York, 
joined themselves together for the purposes of religious wor- 
ship. They were patriot subjects politically, but religiously 
they were rebels against the English church. Their rebel- 
lion, however, simply consisted in the declaration that every 
man had a right to discover and apply the truth as revealed 
in the Scriptures, without the interposition of any power 
other than his reason and conscience. Such a doctrine was 
very repugnant to the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth 
herself declared such teaching to be subversive of the prin- 
ciples on which her monarchy was founded. King James was 
equally intolerant and violent, and persecutions broke out 
from time to time. 

Finding no rest or peace in their own country, the Puritans 
finally determined to go into exile and to seek in another 
land the freedom of worship which was denied them in their 
own. They started for Holland, but were followed and 
brought back again and thrown into prison. After regain- 


ing their freedom they again met on a bleak heath in 
Lincolnshire, and in the spring of 1608 they embarked for 
the Humber. They arrived safely at Amsterdam, where they 
spent the following winter, and then removed to Leyden, 
where they spent ten years. Having secured an informal 
and reluctant promise from King James that he would let 
them alone in America, they gathered together their worldly 
goods and embarked on the "Mayflower" for the New World, 
and founded the Plymouth Rock colony in New England. 
They landed from the "Mayflower," amidst a violent storm 
of sleet and snow, to take up their abode in the wilderness, 
where they laid the first corner-stone of civil and religious 
liberty in America. 

The Dutch colony was founded on Manhattan Island, now 
the City of New York, in the year 1623. These colonists 
were Dutch Protestant refugees from Flanders, Belgium, and 
Holland. They were of the same religious faith as the 
Huguenots in France, and came to America to find relief 
from the persecutions of their own country. These immi- 
grants were descended from the people whom Caesar found 
so difficult to conquer, — from that people who converted 
into fertile fields and meadows the wild morasses inter- 
spersed with lagoons and shallows which were subject to 
inundation by the sea. 

In 1682 William Penn's colonies were founded. 

In the year 1598 Henry IV of France, called Henry of 
Navarre, made a proclamation called the Edict of Nantes, 
by the terms of which the Huguenots were protected in 
their rights of religious worship. This secured protection 
for the period of eighty-seven years, when, on October 22, 
1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, and the most 
relentless persecution followed. Although the ports of France 
were closed against their exit, in spite of every precaution 
five hundred thousand of the best people of France fled into 
foreign lands. In the Eastern Hemisphere they were scat- 
tered from the Baltic Sea to the Cape of Good Hope. On 
the North American continent they were scattered from 



Maine to Florida. Of all the American colonies, South 
Carolina received by far the greatest number of these 
French refugees. 

From the seed sown by the Plymouth Rock colony, the 
Dutch colony, the Penn colonies, and the French colony, 
sprang the principles of civil and religious liberty which 
are the controlling forces of our national life. Having en- 
joyed religious freedom for over a century and a half, our 
ancestors acquired civil liberty through the revolution of 

Patriotic fervor and devotion to the principles of civil and 
religious liberty have continued to inspire the citizens of 
every State of this Union from the day of our independence 
to the present. As time went on, some differences of opinion 
sprang up as to the methods whereby these principles could 
best be maintained. 

Our government is dual in form. The American altar is 
a double one. One is the altar of the State and the other 
of the United States. These two altars joined together con- 
stitute the shrine of American allegiance and citizenship. 
We can do no better than to copy what the Supreme Court 
of the United States says on this subject: 

"The distinction between citizenship of the United States 
and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and estab- 
lished. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United 
States without being a citizen of the State, but an important 
element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. 
He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of 
it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or natu- 
ralized in the United States to be a citizen of the United 

" It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the 
United States and a citizenship of a State which are distinct 
from each other." 

This is what the Supreme Court of the United States said 
and published in deciding what is known in the legal profes- 


sion as the Slaughter House cases. This imperium in im- 
perio form of government led up to a civil conflict beginning 
in the year 1861 and ending in the year 1865. 

A large number of the people of this country believed that 
the allegiance of the citizen to the government of the United 
States was paramount to the allegiance he owed to the gov- 
ernment of the State. On the other hand, a large number 
of the citizens of the United States who were equally as 
patriotic as the others, and who were equally as devoted to 
the principles of civil and religious liberty, were of the 
sincere and candid opinion that the allegiance which the 
citizen owed to the State was paramount to the allegiance 
he owed to the government of the United States. 

The citizens who held these opposite opinions were not 
commingled as political partisans generally are, but they 
were divided by sectional lines. Circumstances were such 
that the decision of this controversy had to be submitted to 
the arbitrament of the sword. By this dread tribunal it was 
decided in favor of the paramount sovereignty of the United 
States, but this result was not reached until a large part of 
the flower and pride of American manhood had perished in 
the unfortunate method of its solution. 

This brings us to a consideration of the Spanish-American 
republics, which have been reposing since their independence 
under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine promulgated by the 
government of the United States of America. 

The Spanish-American republics, nearly all of which have 
copied the constitution of the United States and made it 
their own with but slight changes, should accept our mode 
of settlement of the paramountcy of allegiance to the federal 
government as a vicarious offering for all republics of the 
Western Hemisphere. The contrary solution will convert 
their federal unions into mere ropes of sand. At the time 
when the Spanish-American States became independent of 
Spain, the right of a State to withdraw from the union was 
believed in by a large number of the citizens of the United 
States. It was the almost universal belief of the people of 


the American States which were in the closest proximity to 
the Spanish-American republics. These republics have suf- 
fered much in the way of rebellion and revolution by adopt- 
ing these views, but when they come to regard their allegiance 
to the federal union as paramount to the allegiance to their 
States, provinces, or departments, they will have taken a long 
stride toward a satisfactory and stable government. 

The frequent civil wars in the Spanish-American republics 
have had the general tendency to destroy the sovereignty of 
the States, for the rights of the States are always in peril 
when a condition of civil war exists, and a long and pro- 
tracted series of civil wars will lead to a destruction of 
the rights of the States and to a centralization of power in 
the federal government. 

Notwithstanding some facts in history of a comparatively 
recent date, it can truthfully be said that there is no party 
or political faction in the United States which favors the 
overthrow of the sovereignty of the States. In the United 
States the rights of the States and the rights of the general 
government have become so well denned by constitutional 
restrictions and precedents that there is now but little if 
any friction or clashing between their respective machinery. 
There is but little if any disposition on the part of the gen- 
eral government to reach out and curtail or crush out the 
rights of the States. The limited federal power is in the 
main exerted directly upon the people, and not upon the States. 
Its judiciary, its internal revenue system, and its constabu- 
lary, each and all, exercise their functions directly upon the 
people. There is therefore little room for quarrels or con- 
troversies between the general government and the States, 
or between the States themselves concerning matters of 
loyalty or obedience to the central government, on the part 
of the various States, like those which occurred among the 
States of the Dutch Republic or which sometimes occur 
among the cantons of Switzerland. If the general govern- 
ment is not well administered the calamity falls on the great 
body of the people of the country and not upon the States as 


such. The various States are seeking always to promote and 
preserve the harmony of their federal relations. They have 
nothing to gain by a contrary policy. 

The Spanish republics have failed to secure this beautiful 
equipoise between the general government and the States 
which the United States has finally attained. This, how- 
ever, is not everything which stands in the way of the 
Spanish-American republics to prevent their attaining the 
governing capacity of the people of the United States. 
They do not possess religious liberty. There was origi- 
nally a union of Church and State in all the Spanish-Ameri- 
can republics. Certain republics have secured religious 
freedom only in the last few years. If these Spanish-Ameri- 
can republics do not divorce themselves from the Church the 
Church will doubtless at no distant day divorce itself from 
the republics, in order that it may attain to a higher spiritual 
life than it could possibly reach while consorting with politi- 
cians. The prosperity and high spiritual life which the 
Roman Catholic Church has attained in the United States, 
under religious freedom, would repel even the thought of a 
union of Church and State in this republic. If such a meas- 
ure were practicable, and before the people for their suf- 
frages, the entire membership of that great church would 
doubtless vote against it from cardinal to layman. 

When these republics master the problem of a dual form 
of government by giving their paramount allegiance to the 
federal power, still preserving the rights of the States, and 
when they achieve religious liberty and toleration, there is 
yet one thing more required of them to elevate them to the 
same plane with the people of the United States. They will 
have need to acquire that dignity of race which the people of 
the United States possess, which forbids them to commingle 
with the inferior races on terms of social equality, as is the 
case in nearly, if not all, the Spanish-American republics. 
Instead of preserving their race superiority and purity like 
the Puritans, the Dutch, and other peoples who settled North 
America, the original settlers of Spanish- America commingled 


with the natives and have assimilated to the aborigines. 
Mongrel races have resulted by the miscegenation of whites, 
Indians, and Negroes. This mixture of races is a constant 
menace to republican institutions. The clamor of faction 
may be stilled for a time, but the outcry of an inferior race 
goes on forever. 

A just and correct perception and appreciation of these 
things, denuded of all forms of maudlin philanthropy or sen- 
timent, become absolutely imperative among a self-governing 
people. The training of a people for ages in the affairs of 
government gives it a fitness to exercise political power to 
which the inferior races have not attained. 

The principles of heredity and training which made the 
brother of the wolf the guardian of the flock apply equally 
to the races of men. The inferior race wields the heads- 
man's axe, while the superior race governs so gently that 
the hard hand of power is not felt, so humanely that the 
lash of inexorable justice draws no blood and leaves no 

This government has a duty to perform, for itself, and for 
these struggling republics, which cannot be evaded. The 
Monroe Doctrine is the creed which expresses that duty. 
These weak, feeble, and otherwise defenceless republics grop- 
ing blindly through the darkness of their environments must 
be protected until they shall touch God's right hand in that 
darkness and shall be lifted up to the same plane of stability 
and order with the United States of America. 

Europeans have come to look upon the people of the 
United States as living in violation of the commandment 
against covetousness when applied to the territories of our 

The Romans worshipped a god called Terminus, — the god 
of boundaries and frontiers of the Roman State, as well as of 
private landed property generally. The festivals of Termi- 
nus occurred once each year, and they were called among the 
Romans the Teminalia. It was believed to be an attribute 
of this god that he must always advance and never recede. 


In this faith both republican and imperial Rome worshipped 
this divinity. The events of centuries seemed to justify this 
faith in the god Terminus, always pressing onward, expand- 
ing the Roman boundaries, and never receding. The time 
came at last, however, when the Roman Empire went to 

Alexander was a worshipper at the shrine of Terminus. 
His passion was for universal dominion, and his empire 
reached from Macedonia beyond the Euphrates. His em- 
pire, which was to have been eternal, did not long survive 

Spain laid her offerings upon the altar of Terminus, and 
the sun for centuries never set upon her dominions. Reces- 
sion came to Spain as it did to Rome, to Alexander, and to 
Napoleon, and her empire has been broken into fragments, 
for the nation which once ruled the greater part of the 
Western Hemisphere has not a foot of ground there she can 
call her own. The horses of her conquerors have been 
stabled in her churches and palaces. Her towers have be- 
come the food of the ivy, 

Europeans are grievously mistaken in regarding the Ameri- 
cans as eager for territorial conquests. We have made ac- 
quisitions of territory from time to time, it is true, but each 
case was justified by circumstances, and can easily be de- 
fended upon the highest ground of public policy and 

Americans are not inclined to encroach on the territory of 
their neighbors. What they want and what they hope for and 
expect is a happy and contented people throughout all our 
borders. As careful students of history, there are none who 
know better than the American people how evanescent are all 
human affairs, and how vain and foolish are the wild schemes 
of mad ambition when unsanctified and unrestrained by a sense 
of justice. 

Their purpose is not conquest, but the dissemination of 
light, liberty, and happiness among neighboring peoples. 
Americans are not worshippers at the shrine of Terminus. 


They do not covet the territories of their neighbors. They 
do hope, however, that their neighbors will acquire the same 
inspirations which they possess of liberty and progress. Lib- 
erty and progress, when they go hand in hand, are always 
aggressive. They overturn the temples of pagan idolatry and 
break their images ; crowd the drones in the hive of human 
industry from their stools of indolence, purify the political 
atmosphere, and scourge from it the stagnating elements 
which would otherwise culminate into pestilence. 

We are an expanding nation, however, and it is impossible 
for any one to predict the nature and extent of our future 
boundaries. Washington in his Farewell Address refers to 
"the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the 
union" in such terms as to show that the extension of our 
domain to include the Pacific coast had never occurred to 
him. The most that he had ever dared to dream was of 
the future control of the Mississippi River. By reason 
of having extended our boundaries into the Eastern Hemis- 
phere by the acquisition of the Philippines it has been con- 
tended that we have thereby waived and put aside the Monroe 
Doctrine. No such conclusion can follow from the premises. 
There is no connection between the two. The conclusion 
is illogical. 

This nation has grown to be a great world power, and the 
nations of the earth have finally so recognized it, but it is 
not incumbent upon it t*o cast aside the honorable and defen- 
sive methods and policies whereby it has achieved greatness. 
The United States is now a factor to be reckoned with in re- 
spect to all world movements. It has become a necessary 
party to all forms of diplomacy of general world interest and 

Great Britain and Russia, and perhaps other European 
powers, are willing to take the United States into their con- 
fidence and accept the Monroe Doctrine. We could not ex- 
pect to retain their friendship by making other invasions of 
; the established rules of international law. In performing 
the functions of a stalwart elder brother to the Southern 


republics the United States cannot set aside or ignore any 
of the rights of European subjects which are secured to them 
under the provisions of the established rules of international 
law. The Calvo Doctrine is a heresy which the United States 
should distinctly and unequivocally repudiate. 


The Monroe correspondence and writings pertaining thereto are too 
voluminous for insertion in the text of this work, and too voluminous 
to be of any great value to the general reader. Therefore, only such 
of the letters and writings as will more or less illustrate the text and 
give the facts and circumstances under which the Monroe Declaration 
was made will be given in this appendix. 

The first paper is John Quincy Adams's own account of his com- 
munications with Baron Tuyll as found in the Adams Manuscripts : 

" On the 1 6th of October, 1823, the Baron de Tuyll, the Russian 
Minister, at an interview with me at the Office of the Department of 
State informed me that the Emperor of Russia having learnt that 
General Devereux had been appointed as a Minister Plenipotentiary 
from the Government of the Republic of Colombia to reside at his 
Court, had determined not to receive him in that capacity, nor to 
receive any agent from any of the Governments recently formed in 
the new world — and that he, Baron Tuyll, was instructed to make 
this determination of his Imperial Majesty known, so that there 
might no doubt be entertained in that respect with regard to his 

" That he had not been instructed to make an official communi- 
cation of this fact to the American Government; but that, as he 
considered such a communication the most effectual means of making 
it known to them and thereby of fulfilling the intentions of his sover- 
eign as indicated in his instructions, he should address to me an 
official note to that effect. 

" The Baron added that by two several instructions of prior dates, 
in June and December, 1822, he had been informed of the satisfac- 
tion with which the Emperor had observed that the Government of 
the United States, when recognizing the Independence of the South 
American States, had declared that it was not their intention to devi- 
ate from the neutrality which they had until then observed, in the 
contests between Spain and her American Colonies ; and that it was 


the wish and hope of the Emperor, that the United States should per- 
severe in that course of neutrality. The Baron added that he had 
not thought it necessary to communicate officially the purport of these 
Instructions, and that he should not refer to them in the Note which 
he now proposed to transmit to the Department of State ; but having 
concluded to give in the form of a Note the information of the Em- 
peror's determination with regard to the Mission of General Devereux, 
he had thought the occasion a proper one for making a verbal com- 
munication of the purport of his prior Instructions. 

" I observed to the Baron de Tuyll, that upon the President's return 
from Virginia, which was expected in a very few days, I would lay 
before him, as well the Note, which I should in the meantime receive 
from the Baron, as the purport of the oral communication which he 
then made to me. That I should probably be instructed to return a 
written answer to his Note, and that I should also be directed what 
to say in answer to his verbal remarks. That the Declaration of the 
American Government when they recognized the Southern American 
Nations, that they would persevere in the neutrality till then observed 
between Spain and her emancipated Colonies, had been made under 
the observance of a like neutrality by all European Powers to the 
same contest. That so long as that state of things should continue, I 
could take upon me to assure the Baron, that the United States 
would not depart from the neutrality so declared by them. But that 
if one or more of the European powers should depart from their 
neutrality, that change of circumstances would necessarily become 
a subject of further deliberation in this Government, the result of 
which it was not in my power to foretell. 

" On the same day I received from the Baron de Tuyll the Note, 
copy of which marked i, is herewith enclosed. 

" On the 21st of October, the Baron again called at the Office of the 
Department of State, and read to me the draught of a despatch that 
he had prepared giving an account to his Government of the purport 
of the conference between us of the 16th. He said that being desir- 
ous of making the statement with perfect accuracy, he submitted this 
draught to me, with a view to making any alteration in it, which I 
might think that, to the accomplishment of that object, it would 
require. I observed that it appeared to me to be quite correct, with 
the exception, that in the statement of the final remarks that I had 


made to him, he had so concentrated the substance of it, as to give 
to it a tone of dryness in the manner, which had not been intended 
by me. That he was aware the conversation between us had been in 
manner altogether friendly and confidential, and that after saying to 
him that I should report to the President the purport of his communi- 
cation to me, and answer it according to the directions that I should 
receive from him, I had added that I could at once take it upon my- 
self to assure him, that while the European Powers should continue 
to observe their neutrality between Spain and South America, the 
United States would not depart from theirs. But that a change of 
the State of the question, by foreign and European interposition, 
would necessarily give rise to deliberation here, the result of which 
he must perceive it was not for me to foretell. The relations be- 
tween the United States and Russia had always been of the most 
friendly character, and I knew it was the earnest wish of the Presi- 
dent that they should so continue. The Personal Relations in which 
I had stood for several years with the Russian Government, and 
the proof of Friendship which during that period the Emperor Alex- 
ander had repeatedly given to the United States, had left on my mind, 
an indelible impression of respect for his character. I should regret 
the possible inference that might be drawn by the Imperial Govern- 
ment, from the compressed substance of what I had said to him, that 
it had been in terms as short and dry, as it appeared in his report. He 
said that he immediately saw the force of my remark, and would alter 
his despatch accordingly. 

" On the 24th of October he came again to the office, and read to 
me the amended draft of his despatch, to the general correctness of 
which I assented. He afterwards, as will appear, furnished me with 
a copy of it, as sent to his Court, dated ~ October 1823. 

" At this conference of the 24th of October, the Baron intimated 
to me a wish, that the substance of his Note of the ^ October, 
might be published, in the form of an Editorial Article, in the 
National Intelligencer, or that an article which he should prepare, 
stating the fact that such communication had been made by him to 
this Government, might be inserted by his direction, not as official, 
but yet as from an authentic source. He said that his motive for 
this wish was to discharge faithfully his duty to his Government, 
which had enjoined him not to suffer any doubt to be entertained 


with regard to the Emperor's intentions, on the subject to which 
it relates. 

" I observed that as to an Editorial paragraph apparently authorita- 
tive, stating the fact of his written communication, it would doubtless 
excite much attention, and lead to the enquiry what answer had been 
given to it. That I should send an answer, to him, which I supposed 
would be of a nature, not to require a reply, and that the corre- 
spondence on that subject would terminate with it. That after he 
should receive the answer, if he still desired that the whole transaction 
should be made public, I did not apprehend there would be any ob- 
jection on our part to make it so, either in the form of a newspaper 
paragraph, or by the publication of the two Notes. But perhaps the 
most suitable manner would be that they should be communicated, 
with the documents accompanying the President's Message to Con- 
gress at their approaching Session. 

" That with regard to a publication by his direction, I had to remark ; 
that from the perfect freedom of the Press in this Country foreign 
Ministers, if they chose to avail themselves of it, possessed the means 
of operating upon the public mind, in a manner not accessible to 
them in countries where the Press was under the controul of the 
Government. Foreign Ministers in the United States had often so 
availed themselves of it ; but never with any success ; and always with 
a result of disservice rather than of service to their own Government. 
We considered it as an improper expedient for them to resort to. 
And that as between Nation and Nation, no foreign Minister in the 
United States, could with propriety insert in the public prints, any 
thing that an American Minister in his Country would by the existing 
state of the Press be debarred from publishing there. 

" That in the present case if he should publish a statement of the 
communication made by him, it would immediately excite the en- 
quiry what answer had been returned to it by this Government. 
An enquiry which upon the Meeting of Congress could not fail to 
present itself in the form of a Resolution in one or the other House, 
calling upon the Executive for information concerning it, and the 
natural answer to which would be the communication of the two 
Notes. But in the meantime, the first publication from him would 
give rise to animadversions in the public Prints, and perhaps in Con- 
gress, which might be unacceptable both to him and to his Govern- 


ment, and the character of which would readily occur to his own 

" He said he believed the best mode of giving the publicity to the 
whole subject, which might be necessary to give effect to the views 
of his Government, would be by the communication of the papers to 
Congress, as I had proposed. But if it was agreeable to me, he 
would wait to receive my answer, and would then request another 
interview with me, at which he would candidly state to me his 
definitive wishes, with regard to the publication. 

"Upon the President's return from Virginia, on the 5th of No- 
vember, I laid before him the Note of 16 October received from Baron 
Tuyll, and reported to him the substance of the Conferences between 
the Baron and me as here related. After a consultation with the 
members of the Administration then in Washington, I was directed by 
the President to request another interview with the Baron; which 
accordingly took place on the 8th. 

" I then told him that I had submitted to the President the Note 
from him declaring the Emperor's determination not to receive any 
Minister or Agent from any of the South American States, to which I 
should send him an answer : that I had also reported to the President 
the substance of our verbal conferences : of what had been said by 
him, and of my answers. That the President had directed me : to say 
that he approved of my answers as far as they had gone, and to add 
that he received the observations of the Russian Government relating 
to the neutrality of the United States in the contest between Spain, 
and the Independent States of South America amicably ; and in return 
for them wished him to express to the Court the hope of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States that Russia would on her part also con- 
tinue to observe the same neutrality. After some conversation the 
Baron desired me to repeat what I had said, that he might be sure 
of perfectly understanding me ; which I did. He then observed 
that he should immediately prepare a dispatch to his Government, 
relating to the purport of this conversation, and (it being Saturday) 
that to be sure of its accuracy he would send it to my house the next 
day, requesting me to make any observations upon it that I should 
think advisable. 

" At this conference, upon a suggestion from the President, I en- 
quired of the Baron, what was the import of the words 'political 


principles,' in his note of ± October. He said they were used 
in the Instructions of his Government to him, and he understood 
them as having reference to the right of Supremacy of Spain over her 
Colonies ; and that this appeared to him to be so clearly their mean- 
ing that he did not think it would be necessary for him to ask of his 
Government an explanation of them. The Baron reminded me of 
my observation at a former meeting that my answer to his note, 
would probably not be of a nature to require a reply : and of my 
engagement to refer it for further advisement, whether and how the 
correspondence should be published. I told him I remembered both, 
and still believed that my answer to his Note would require no reply, 
but that of that he would himself judge. And I stated to him what 
I supposed would be the substance of my answer ; upon which he 
made no remark. 

"The next day, 9. November, he sent to my house the draft of his 
despatch, which, after perusing it I returned to him with a private 
and confidential note, containing two observations relating to it. 
The first that in reporting my part of the preceding day's con- 
versation he had used the expression of contest between Spain and 
her Colonies, while I had then and in all our conferences spoken of 
them as the Independent American States, heretofore Spanish Colonies, 
and I suggested to him the propriety of making the report of what 
was said by me conformable to this fact. The second, that as the 
despatch concluded by stating to his Court, that before making it up 
he had for the sake of accuracy, submitted it to my inspection, as 
he had also done with regard to the prior despatch of - 5 - October, 
I thought it necessary, with a view to the certainty of equal accuracy 
in my reports to the President of the contents of his despatches, to 
request copies of them both. The next day he sent me confiden- 
tially copies of both — the latter of them dated 3 ° ° ctober h 182?, and 

11 .November j> ""v* 

amended conformably to the suggestion in my confidential note to 
him of the preceding day. Copies of these papers marked 2 and 3 
are annexed. 

" On the 15 th of November, the answer, copy of which marked N. 4. 
was sent to the Baron. On the 17 th the Baron requested another 
interview with me, in consequence of fresh despatches received from 
his Government. I received him on the same day ; when he read to 
me a Letter to him from Count Nesselrode, dated about the last of 


August, informing him of the intended departure of the Emperor 
Alexander from St. Petersburg, on a tour of inspection of his armies, 
which would probably occupy about three months ; with assurances 
that no movement of hostility was contemplated in connection with 
this Journey, but that the preservation of general Peace, was still the 
object of the Emperor's earnest solicitude. 

" The Baron communicated to me at the same time, extracts from 
two other despatches received from his Court — one dated 30 
August N. S. containing an exposition of the views of the Emperor 
Alexander and of his Allies, Austria, Prussia and France in relation to 
the Affairs of Spain and Portugal — and the other dated 1 September 
N. S. replying to despatches received from the Baron, after his first 
arrival here, and relating particularly to the Negotiation, concerning 
the Northwest Coast of America, and the Imperial Ukase of the ^ 
September 1821. He left these extracts with me, to be submitted 
in confidence to the President, and with permission to take a copy of 
that of the 30th of August. He declared his entire satisfaction with 
my answer to his note of the ± October." 

The following letters of Baron Tuyll and Count Nesselrode are 
also to be found in the Adams manuscripts : 


Monsieur, — L'Empereur, mon Auguste Maitre, ayant et6 informe", 
que la Regence Republicaine de Colombia avait nomme' des Agens 
diplomatiques aupres de differentes Cours Europeennes et que le 
G6n£ral de division d'Evreux avait recu une destination semblable pour 
St. Petersbourg, sa Majeste" Imperiale a enjouit a son Ministere de me 
prevenir, que, fidele aux principes politiques, qu'Elle suit de concert 
avec ses allies, Elle ne pourra dans aucun cas recevoir aupres d'Elle 
aucun agent quelconque, soit de la Regence de Colombia, soit d'aucun 
des autres Gouvernemens de fait, qui doivent leur existence aux evene- 
ments, dont le nouveau monde a ete depuis quelques ann£es le theatre. 

Comme il m'est preterit de ne pas laisser subsister le moindre 
doute sur les intentions de sa Majesti Imperiale a cet egard, j'ai jug£, 
Monsieur, devoir porter cette determination a votre connaissance et 
je saisis cette occasion pour vous r£it£rer l'assurance de la haute con- 
sideration avec laquelle j'ai 1'honneur d'etre, Monsieur, votre tres 
humble et tres obeissant serviteur (Signed) Tuyll. 

Washington, le ^ Octobre, 1823. 





Washington, le ^ octobre 1823. 

M R - le Comte, — Pour remplir les ordres que V. Ex. m'a fait 
l'honneur de me transmettre par sa d^peche en date du 14 Juin 

dernier, i'ai addresse" le A octobre a M T . le Secretaire d'Etat Adams 

7 j 16 

la lettre ci annexed en copie. 

Ayant jug£, M r - le Comte, que cette demarche officielle demandait 
un developpement plus £tendu des principes et de la facon de voir 
de notre Cour, concernant la question des Colonies Espagnoles 
d'Amerique, je me rendis ce raerae jour au Departement des affaires 
etrangeres et je previns Mf le Secretaire d'Etat du Contcnu de 
l'office, qu'il allait recevoir de ma part. Je passai ensuite a m'expli- 
quer envers ce ministre relativement a l'objet dessus mentionne" 
dans un sens entierement conforme aux d^peches de V. Ex. du || 
Juillet et du — Decembre 1822, et je finis par exprimer au nom 
de S. M. l'Empereur, notre Auguste Maitre, le voeu et l'espoir, que 
le Gouvernement des Etats Unis persistera dans le systeme de neu- 
trality entre l'Espagne et les Colonie Espagnoles d'Amerique, qu'il 
annonca vouloir suivre a l'epoque, ou il reconnut l'independance 
et l'existence politique de ces derniers pays. 

Mr. Adams me repondit : qu'il pouvait m'assurer, qu'aussi longtems 
que les affaires continueront de rester sous ce rapport dans le meme 
£tat, ou elles se trouvaient au moment, que le Gouvernement Ame>- 
icain a adopte le systeme de cette neutralite, et ou elles se sont main- 
tenues jusqu'a present le Gouvernement ne se departira point de ce 
systeme. Mr. le Secretaire d'Etat ajouta ensuite les observations 
suivantes : 

Que la resolution du Gouvernement des Etats Unis d'observer la 
neutralite entre l'Espagne et ses Colonies Americaines, ayant 6t6 
prise d'apres un 6tat de choses existant, celui de la neutralite" de la 
part des Puissances de 1'Europe dans la guerre, que se font l'Espagne 
et ses Colonies, tant que cet etat de choses continuera de subsister, ce 
pays ci n'apportera point d'alt£ration au systeme de neutrality, qu'il 
a embrasse\ Que si cette situation venait a eprouver un changement 
de la part de l'une ou de l'autre Puissance Europ£enne, de cette 
nouvelle situation r£sult£rait pour le cabinet de Washington la 
n^cessit^ de deliberations nouvelles ; et qu'il ne saurait, naturelle- 
ment, pas me dire, quelles pburraient etre les determinations que 
dans une semblable hypothese, le Gouvernement des Etats Unis se 
verrait dans le cas d'adopter. 



J'ai remarque avec satisfaction, Mr. le Comte, que Mr. le Secre- 
taire d'Etat a paru reconnoitre dans les explications, que j'ai pense 
devoir lui offrir, une nouvelle preuve des vues droites, gdnereuses et 
pleines de moderation, qui caracterisent la politique de l'Empereur 
et un t£moignage de plus des dispositions constamment amicales 
de Sa Majeste" Imperiale envers le Gouvernement des Etats Unis. 
Je me suis confirme a cette occasion dans Pid£e, que j'avais deja 
anterieurement concue, du prix, que le Gouvernement de ce pays 
attache a ces dispositions de notre Auguste Souverain, et de son desir 
d'y correspondre de son cote sincerement ; sentimens, dont Mr. 
Adams m'a reitere les assurances les plus positives. 

J'ai l'honneur d'etre &c. &c. (Signed) Tuyll. 


A S. E. M R - le Comte de Nesselrode. 

Washington, le 3 ° ° ctobr f, 1823. 

7 11 Novembre J 

M R - le Comte, — Mr. le Secretaire d'Etat Adams m'ayant invite de 
me rendre le 2? s N o° ei ' n e bre au Departement des affaires etrangeres, ce min- 
istre me donna a connaitre, qu'il avait mis la lettre officielle, que je lui 
adressai le ± Octobre et sur laquelle je recevrai incessament une 
reponse par ecrit, sous les yeux de Mr. le President des Etats Unis 
et qu'il lui avait egalement rendu compte tant des explications ver- 
bales, dans lesquelles j'etois entre a cette occasion, concernant la 
neutralite de ce pays entre l'Espagne et ses Colonies Americaines, 
que de ce qu'il m'avait rdpondu, de merae verbalement, a ce sujet. 

Mr. Adams me dit ensuite que Mr. le President avait pleinement 
approuve" cette response de Mr. le Secretaire d'Etat, qu'il l'avait de 
plus charge de m'assurer que les observations, qu'au nom de S. M. 
l'Empereur j'avais presenters au Gouvernement des Etats Unis rel- 
ativement au point susmentionne avaient 6t£ recues amicalement par 
le President et que ce dernier desirait, qu'en portant cette assur- 
ance a la connaissance de ma Cour, j'y ajoutasse simultanement l'ex- 
pression de voeu, que forme de son cote le President des Etats Unis : 
"que Sa Majeste Imperiale put trouver bon de continuer de meme a 
suivre le systeme de neutralite, qu'Elle a jusqu'a present observe dans 
les differences, qui subsistent entre l'Espagne et les Etats inde'pen- 
dans, ci devant Colonies d'Espagne en Amerique." 

J'ai pense devoir prier Mr. Adams de prendre lecture de mon rap- 
port en date du 15 Octobre, que ce ministre a reconnu rendre 
fidelement le sens de ce qui s'est passe dans nos premieres confe- 


rences, et j'ai encore adopte aujourd'hui la meme raarche, afin de 
m'assurer d'autant mieux de l'exactitude de la presente depeche. 

J'ai l'honneur d'etre, &c, &c., (Signed) Tuyll. 



St. Petersbourg, le 30 Aout, 1823. 

Quand les principes qu'une cour a resolu de suivre, sont etablis 
avec precision ; quand le but qu'elle se propose est clairement 
indique, les evenements deviennent faciles a juger pour Ses Ministres 
& Agents diplomatiques. Ceux de l'Empereur n'avaient done pas 
besoin d'instructions nouvelles pour apprecier & considerer sous 
leur vrai point de vue les heureux changements qui viennent de 
s'accomplir dans la Peninsule. 

Pen6tr£s de l'esprit qui dirige la politique de Sa Majeste Impdriale, 
ils auront applaudi aux declarations, dont ces changements ont et£ 
precedes, exprime les voeux les plus sinceres en faveur d'une entre- 
prise qui embrasse de si hauts interets & annonce sans hesitation que 
l'Empereur & ses allies voyaient avec un veritable sentiment de joie, 
la marche des troupes de S. M. T. C. couronn^e d'un double succes 
par le concours des peuples auxquels l'armee francaise a offert une 
g^n^reuse assistance & par l'affranchissement des pais ou la revolution 
etait parvenue a detroner l'autorite legitime. 

Aujourd'hui que les artisans des malheurs de l'Espagne, renfermes 
dans Cadiz & dans Barcelone, peuvent bien encore abreuver de 
nouveaux outrages leurs prisonniers augustes, mais non asservir & 
tyranniser leur patrie ; adjourd'hui que le Portugal a noblement 
secoue le joug d'une odieuse faction, nous sommes arrives a une 
epoque, ou il ne sera point inutile de vous informer des decisions & 
des vues ulterieures de Sa Majesty Imperiale. 

La force des armes deployee apropos; environnee de toutes les 
garanties que r^clamait la resolution d'y avoir recours ; tempered par 
toutes les mesures & toutes les promesses qui pouvaient tranquilliser 
le peuple sur leur avenir ; soutenue, enfin, par cette puissance d'union 
& d'accord qui a cree de nos jours un nouveau systeme politique : 
la force des armes n'a eu en quelque sorte qu'a se laisser appercevoir 
pour demasquer aux yeux du monde un despotisme qu'avaient trop 
souvent revoque" en doute, ou l'erreur des homines a theories qui s'abu- 
saient involontairement peut-etre sur le veritable etat des choses, ou la 
mauvaise foi des hommes a projets criminels qui ne cherchaient que les 
moyens d'etendre & de propager la contagion des memes malheurs. 


En Espagne, la nation toute entire attendait impatiemment l'occa- 
sion de prouver que la plus coupable imposture avait seule pu lui 
preter ces voeux subversifs de I'ordre social & ce desir d'avilir la 
Religion & le Trone que dementait d'avance chaque page de son his- 
toire. En Portugal, il a suffi d'un exemple & du courage d'un jeune 
Prince, pour que Fedifice revolutionnaire tombat au premier choc, & 
pour ainsi dire, de sa propre faiblesse. C'est une grande & conso- 
lante lecon que la Providence Divine nous reservait. Elle accorde la 
justification d'un eclatant triomphe aux desseins des Monarques qui 
ont pris F engagement de marcher dans ses voies ; mais peut-etre 
n'a-t-on pas assez observe que les memorable evenements, dont nous 
sommes temoins, marquent une nouvelle phase de la civilisation Euro- 
peenne. Sans s'affaiblir, le patriotisme parait s'etre 6claire ; la raison 
des peuples a fait un grand pas, en reconnoissant que, dans le systeme 
actuel de F Europe, les conquetes sont impossibles ; que les Souverains 
qui avait mis leur gloire a reparer les effets de ces anciennes inter- 
ventions dont la malveillance essayait encore d'allarmer la credulite 
publique, ne renouveleraient point ce qu'ils avaient toujours con- 
damne, & que ces vieilles haines nationales qui repoussaient jusqu'aux 
services rendus par une main etrangere, devaient disparaitre devant 
un sentiment universel, devant le besoin d'opposer une digue impe- 
netrable au retour des troubles & des revolutions dont nous avons 
tous ete, trente ans, les jouets et les victimes. Que Fon compare 
F Espagne telle que nous la peignaient des predictions sinistres, 
a FEspagne telle qu'elle se montre aujourd'hui; que Fon suive 
rapides progres de la bonne cause, depuis Fannee derniere, & 
on se convaincra de ces utiles verites, on verra que la paix, en 
se retablissant, aura pour base la conviction generalement acquise 
des pr£cieux advantages d'une politique qui a delivre la France, 
en 1814 et 1815, vole au secours de FItalie en 1821, brise les 
chaines de FEspagne & du Portugal en 1823; d'une politique, qui 
n'a pour objet que de garantir la tranquillite de tous les Etats 
dont se compose le monde civilise. 

II importe que les Ministres & Agents de FEmpereur ne perdent 
pas de vue ces graves considerations & qu'ils les developpent toutes 
les fois qu'ils trouvent Foccasion de les faire apprecier. 

L' Alliance a ete trop calomniee & elle a fait trop de bien pour 
qu'on ne doive pas confondre ses accusateurs, en placant les re- 
sultats a cote des imputations, & l'honneur d'avoir affranchi & sauv6 
les peuples, a cote du reproche de vouloir les asservir & les perdre. 

Tout autorise a croire que cette salutaire Alliance accomplira sans 


obstacle serieux l'ceuvre dont elle s'occupe. La Revolution expirante 
peut bien compter quelques jours de plus ou de moins d'agonie, mais 
II lui sera plus difficile que jamais de redevenir Puissance ; car les 
Monarques Allies sont decides a ne pas transiger, a ne pas raeme trai- 
ter avec elle. Certes, ils ne conseilleront, en Espagne, ni les ven- 
geances ni les reactions ; & leur premier principe sera constamment, que 
l'innocence obtienne une juste garantie & l'erreur un noble pardon ; 
mais ils ne sauraient reconnaitre ancien droit cree" & soutenu par le 
crime ; ils ne sauraient practiser avec ceux qu'on a vus renouveler a 
l'isle de Leon, a Madrid & a Seville des attentats qui prouvent le 
mepris ouvert de tout ce que les homraes devraient respecter le plus 
dans Fint^ret de leur repos & de leur bonheur. C'est avec cette de- 
termination qu'a €t6 forme" & que sera poursuivi le siege de Cadix. On 
ne posera les armes qu'au moment ou la liberty du roi aura enfin et£ 
conquise & assured. 

Ce moment sera celui, ou les Allies rempliront envers FEspagne le 
reste de leurs engagements & de leurs devoirs. Ils se garderont de 
porter la plus 16gere atteinte a Findependance du Roi, sous le rapport 
de Fadministration int^rieure de ses Etats, mais par Forgane de leurs 
Ambassadeurs (Sa Majesty Imperiale se propose alors d'accrediter 
temporairement le Lieutenant G£n£ral Pozzo di Borgo aupres de 
S. M. C.) ils eUeveront la voix de Famiti6, ils useront de ses privileges, 
ils profiteront de leur position, pour insister avec energie sur la 
necessity d'empecher que Favenir ne reproduise les erreurs du pass£, 
de confier a des Institutions fortes, monarchique & toutes nationales 
les destinees futures de FEspagne & de rendre d£sormais inutile 
Fassistance qu'elle a recue, on y fondant un gouvernement dont la surety 
residera dans le bien meme dont il sera Finstrument & Fauteur. 

Les Alliens ne pourrant signaler ni les loix, ni les mesures, ni les 
hommes les plus capable de r^aliser de telles intentions. Mais ils 
croiraient manquer a une de leurs obligations les plus essentielles, s'ils 
n'avertissaient Ferdinand VII., redevenue libre, que leur entreprise 
demande encore une derniere apologie aux yeux de FEurope, & que 
si la prosperity de FEspagne n'en est la consequence immediate, ils 
n'auront rien fait ni pour lui, ni pour eux. 

L'Empereur souhaite avec la meme sincerity & le meme d£sint£- 
ressement un honheur durable a la Nation portugaise. Nos communi- 
cations jointes a celles des Cours d'Autriche, de France et de Prusse 
qui partage ce desir, en offiiront la meilleure preuve au Cabinet de 
Lisbonne, & nous n'aurons plus de voeux a former, si le nouveau 
gouvernement du Portugal prepare avec prudence & maturite les 


materiaux d'une restauration solide, s'il les met en oeuvre, quand 
1'Espagne pourra se livrer aux raeme soins, & s'il rivalise de zele avec 
le Cabinet de Madrid pour decider, a l'avantage reciproque des deux 
Etats, les questions de politique exterieure & administrative, qu'ils 
ont, l'un a l'autre, a mediter & a resoudre. 

Tel est le sens dans lequel ont agi & dans lequel continueront 
d'agir l'Empereur & ses Allies 

Vous etes autorise a faire usage de la pr£sente dans vos rapports 
confidentiels avec le gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 

On November 25, Adams, to use the language in the " Memoirs of 
John Quincy Adams," volume VI, page 199, "made a draft of obser- 
vations upon the communications recently received from Baron de 
Tuyll, the Russian Minister. Took the paper together with the state- 
ment I had prepared of what had passed between him and me, and 
all the papers received from him to the President." 

That portion of the paper which is in brackets was stricken out. It 
read as follows: 

" The Government of the United States of America is [essentially] 
Republican. By their Constitution it is provided that The United 
States shall guaranty to every State in this Union, a Republican form 
of Government, and shall protect each of them from invasion." 

" [The principles of this form of Polity are ; 1 that the Institution 
of Government, to be lawful, must be pacific, that is founded upon 
the consent, and by the agreement of those who are governed ; 
and 2 that each Nation is exclusively the judge of the Government 
best suited to itself, and that no other Nation, can justly interfere by 
force to impose a different Government upon it. The first of these 
principles may be designated, as the principle of Liberty — the second 
as the principle of National Independence. — They are both Principles 
of Peace and Good Will to Men.] 

" [A necessary consequence of the second of these principles is 
that] The United States recognize in other Nations the right which 
they claim and exercise for themselves, of establishing and of modify- 
ing their own Governments, according to their own judgments, and 
views of their interests, not encroaching upon the rights of others. 

"Aware that the Monarchial principle of Government, is different 
from theirs, the United States have never sought a conflict with 
it, for interests -not their own. Warranted by the principle of Na- 
tional Independence, which forms one of the bases of their politi- 
cal Institutions, they have desired Peace, Commerce and Honest 



Friendship with all other Nations, and entangling alliances with 

" From all the combinations of European Politics relative to the 
distribution of Power, or the Administration of Government the United 
States have studiously kept themselves aloof. They have not sought, 
by the propagation of their principles to disturb the Peace, or to 
intermeddle with the policy of any part of Europe. In the Indepen- 
dence of Nations, they have respected the organization of their Govern- 
ments, however different from their own, and [Republican to the last 
drop of blood in their veins] they have thought it no sacrifice of their 
principles to cultivate with sincerity and assiduity Peace and Friend- 
ship even with the most absolute Monarchies and their Sovereigns. 

" To the Revolution and War which has severed the immense 
territories, on the American (Territories) continents heretofore sub- 
ject to the dominion of Spain from the yoke of that power, the 
United States have observed an undeviating neutrality. So long as 
the remotest prospect existed that Spain by Negotiation or by arms 
could recover the possession she had once held of those Countries, 
the United States forbore to enquire by what title she had held them, 
and how she had fulfilled towards them the duties of all Governments 
to the People under their charge. When the South-American Nations, 
after successively declaring their Independence, had maintained it, 
until no rational doubt could remain, that the dominion of Spain over 
them was irrecoverably lost, the United States recognized them as in- 
dependent Nations, and have entered into those relations with them, 
commercial and political incident to that Condition — Relations the 
more important to the interests of the United States, as the whole of 
those emancipated Regions are situated in their own Hemisphere, and 
as the most extensive, populous and powerful of the new Nations are 
in their immediate vicinity; and one of them bordering upon the 
Territories of this Union. 

" To the contest between Spain and South America all the European 
Powers have also remained neutral. The maritime Nations have 
freely entered into commercial intercourse with the South Americans, 
which they could not have done, while the Colonial Government 
of Spain existed. The neutrality of Europe was one of the founda- 
tions upon which the United States formed their judgment, in recog- 
nizing the South-American Independence ; they considered and still 
consider, that from this neutrality the European Nations cannot right- 
fully depart. 

"Among the Powers of Europe, Russia is one with whom the 


United States have entertained the most friendly and mutually bene- 
ficial intercourse. Through all the vicissitudes of War and Revolu- 
tion, of which the world for the last thirty years has been the 
theatre, the good understanding between the two Governments has 
been uninterrupted. The Emperor Alexander in particular has not 
ceased to manifest sentiments of Friendship and good will to the 
United States from the period of his accession to the throne, to this 
moment, and the United States on their part, have as invariably shown 
the interest which they take in his Friendship and the solicitude with 
which they wish to retain it. 

"In the communications recently received from the Baron de 
Tuyll, so far as they relate to the immediate objects of intercourse 
between the two Governments, the President sees with high satisfaction, 
the avowal of unabated cordiality and kindness towards the United 
States on the part of the Emperor. 

"With regard to the communications which relate to the Affairs of 
Spain and Portugal, and to those of South America, while sensible of 
the candour and frankness with which they are made, the President 
indulges the hope, that they are not intended either to mark an JEra. 
either of change, in the friendly dispositions of the Emperor towards 
the United States or of hostility to the principles upon which their 
Governments are founded ; or of deviation from the system of 
neutrality hitherto observed by him and his allies, in the contest be- 
tween Spain and America. 

" To the Notification that the Emperor, in conformity with the politi- 
cal principles maintained by himself and his Allies, has determined 
to receive no Agent from any of the Governments de facto, which 
have been recently formed in the new World it has been thought 
sufficient to answer that the United States, faithful to their political 
principles, have recognised and now consider them as the Govern- 
ments of Independent Nations. 

" To the signification of the Emperor's hope and desire that the 
United States should continue to observe the Neutrality which they 
have proclaimed between Spain and South-America, the answer has 
been that the neutrality of the United States will be maintained as 
long as that of Europe, apart from Spain, shall continue and that they 
hope that of the Imperial Government of Russia will be continued. 

" [To the confidential communication from the Baron de Tuyll, of 
the Extract, dated S| Petersburg 30 August 1823. So far as it relates 
to the affairs of Spain and Portugal, the only remark which it is 
thought necessary to make, is of the great satisfaction with which the 


President has noticed that paragraph, which contains the frank and 
solemn admissions that ' the undertaking of the Allies, yet demands a 
last Apology to the eyes of Europe?] 

" In the general declarations that the allied Monarchs will never com- 
pound, and never will eve.n treat with the Revolution and that their 
policy has only for its object by forcible interposition to guaranty the 
tranquility of all the States of which the civilised world is composed, 
the President wishes to perceive sentiments, the application of which 
is limited, and intended in their results to be limited to the Affairs of 

" That the sphere of their operations was not intended to embrace the 
United States of America, nor any portion of the American Hemisphere. 

"And finally deeply desirous as the United States are of preserving 
the general peace of the world, their friendly intercourse with all the 
European Nations, and especially the most cordial harmony and good 
will with the Imperial Government of Russia, it is due as well to their 
own unalterable Sentiments, as to the explicit avowal of them, called for 
by the communications received from the Baron de Tuyll, to declare 

" That the United States of America, and their Government, could 
not see with indifference, the forcible interposition of any European 
Power, other than Spain, either to restore the dominion of Spain over 
her emancipated Colonies in America, or to establish Monarchical 
Governments in those Countries, or to transfer any of the possessions 
heretofore or yet subject to Spain in the American Hemisphere, to 
any other European Power. 

" Department of State Washington 27 November 1823." 

The foregoing paper came before Monroe's Cabinet for discussion, 
which is very fully given in the memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 
Volume VI, pages 199 to 212. 

The paper above given in full was read to the Russian Minister 
without the paragraphs which were in parenthesis. 

The two following notes from Monroe to Mr. Adams are also found 
in the Adams manuscripts : 


Dear Sir, I am inclind to think that the second parag had 
better be omitted, & that such part of the 3? be also omitted, as 
will make that parag h stand, as the second distinct proposition, in 
our system. The principle of the paper, will not be affected by 


this modification, & it will be less likely to produce excitement 

Two other passages, the first in first page, & the second in the 3* 
are also marked for omission. (Signed) J. M. 

You had better see the Baron immediately. 
Nov' 27, 1823. 


Nov^ 27 1823. 
The direct attack which the parag makes on the recent move- 
ments, of the Emperor, & of course, censure, on him, and its tendency 
to irritate, suggest the apprehension that it may produce an unfavor- 
able effect. The illustration of our principles, is one thing ; the doing 
it, in such a form, bearing directly, on what has passed, & which is 
avoided in the message, is another. Nevertheless, as you attach 
much interest to this passage, I am willing that you insert it, being 
very averse to your omitting anything w ch you deem so material. 

(Signed) J. M. 

The following letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Jefferson is to be 
found among the Jefferson Papers in the Department of State, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

Washington, Deer 4, 1S23. 

Dear Sir, — I now forward to you a copy of the message, more 
legible than that which [was] sent by the last mail. I have con- 
curr'd thoroughly with the sentiments expressed in your late letter, as 
I am persuaded, you will find, by the message, as to the part we 
ought to act, toward the allied powers, in regard to S? America. 
I consider the cause of that country, as essentially our own. That 
the crisis is fully as menacing, as has been supposed, is confirmed, by 
recent communications, from another quarter, with which I will make 
you acquainted in my next. The most unpleasant circumstance, in 
these communications is, that Mr. Canning's zeal, has much abated 
of late. Whether this proceeds, from the unwillingness of his gov. 1 , 
to recognize the new gov'? or from offers made to it, by the allied 
powers, to seduce it, into their scale, we know not. We shall never- 
theless be on our guard against any contingency. Very respectfully 
and sincerely Yours, 

(Signed) James Monroe. 
Reed Dec. 7. 


The following letter from Mr. Monroe to S. L. Gouverneur is to be 
found among the Monroe Papers in the New York Public Library : 

Washington, Dec. 4, 1823. 

Dear Samuel, — I have only a moment to inform you that your 
aunt escaped her chill last night & is much better today. She was 
bled yesterday & had also taken some Calomel to which we attribute 
this improvement. 

I send you two copies of the message, better printed than that which 
I sent yesterday, with the information, which we possess, of the views 
of the allied powers, which altho' applicable to S? Am : , touch us, 
on principle, it was thought a duty to advert to the subject, & in 
plain terms. It has been done, nevertheless, in mild, respectful, & 
friendly terms. Had I omitted to put the country on its guard, & 
anything had occurrd of a serious character, I should probably have 
been censurd as it is they may look before them, and what may be 
deemed expedient. I shall be glad to hear in what light the warning 
is viewd. 

I hope that neither you, Mr. Tillotson or Mr. Morris, will pledge 
either yourselves, or me, in favor of Mr. Randolph, further than as 
to the respectability of his character, & what I have heard of his 
estate, which I stated I had not seen. I think it valuable, & that he 
would not misrepresent facts. Be on your guard as to this. Tell 
Maria that we are much relieved, by the favorable change in her 
mother's health. If she escapes tomorrow, we trust, that all further 
anxiety will cease. Affectionate regards attend you all. — 

Your friend (Signed) James Monroe. 

The original draft of a letter made by John Quincy Adams to Baron 
de Tuyll was so modified that the portion in brackets was omitted by 
request of Monroe and the words in italics were omitted from the 

Department of State. Washington, 15 Nov'. 1823. 
Sir, — I have had the honor of receiving your note of the ± ins? 
communicating the information that His Imperial Majesty the Em- 
peror of all the Russias has determined in no case whatsoever to 
receive any agent whatsoever from the Government of the Republic 
of Columbia, or from any other of the Governments de facto, which 
owe their existence to the events of which the new World has for 
some past years been the theatre. 



Influenced by the considerations which prescribe it as a duty to 
independent Christian Nations of Christians to entertain with each 
other, the friendly relations which sentiments of humanity and their 
mutual interests require, and satisfied that those of South America 
had become irrevocably Independent of Spain the Government of 
the United States B [have interchanged Ministers Plenipotentiary 
with the Republic of Colombia, have appointed Ministers of the same 
Rank to the Governments of Mexico, Buenos Ayres and Chili, have 
received a Minister and other Diplomatic Agents from Mexico, and 
will continue to receive and send Agents Diplomatic and Commercial, 
in their intercourse with the other American Independent Nations, as 
in the performance of their social duties, and in the pursuit of their 
lawful Interests they shall find expedient proper. While regretting 
that the political principles maintained by His Imperial Majesty 
and his allies, have not yet led the Imperial Government to the same 
result, and that they have not seen fit to receive the diplomatic agent 
Minister of Peace said to have been commissioned by the Repub- 
lican Government of Colombia, to reside near his Imperial Majesty, 
the Government of the United States, respecting in others that self- 
dependent Sovereignty which they exercise themselves, receive from 
you the information of his Majesty's determination on this subject 
in the Spirit of Candour, frankness, and of amicable disposition with 
which it is given.] 

D. I avail myself of the occasion to reiterate to you, Sir, the assur- 
ance of my distinguished Consideration. 

C. From the information contained in your Note, it appears that 
the political Principles maintained by His Imperial Majesty and his 
allies, have not led the Imperial Government to the same result. 
I am instructed by the President to assure you, that the Govern- 
ment of the United States respecting in others the Independence of 
the Sovereign authority, which they exercise themselves, receive the 
communication of H. I. M.'s determination on that subject in the 
Spirit of Candour, frankness, and of amicable disposition with which it 
is made. D. 

B. The government of the U States thought it proper to acknowl- 
edge their independence, in March 1822, by an act which was then 
published to the world. This government has since interchanged minis- 
ters with the republic of Columbia, has appointed ministers of the 
same rank to the governments of Mexico, Buenos Ayres, and Chili, 
has received a minister and other diplomatic agents from Mexico and 


preserve!, in other respects the same intercourse, with those new 
States, that they have with other powers. 

By a recurrence to the message of the President, a copy of which 
is enclosed, you will find, that this measure was adopted on great 
consideration ; that the attention of this gov. had been called, to 
the contest ; between the parent country & the Colonies, from an early 
period that it had marked the course of events with impartiality, 
& had become perfectly satisfied, that Spain could not reestablish her 
authority over them : that in fact the new States were completely 
independant. C. 

[Under those circumstances my gov* has heard with great regret, 
the information contained in your note that the political principles 
maintained by his Imperial Majesty & his allies, have not yet 
led the Imperial gov' to the same result. I am instructed how- 
ever by the President to assure you, that this communication of 
H. I. M.'s determination, on this subject has been received in 
the spirit of candour, frankness, & of amicable disposition with which 
it is given.] 

Monroe wrote Adams the two following notes : 

Nov 1 : 8, 1823. 

Dear Sir, — I called to confer a moment with you respecting the 
concerns depending with the minister of Russia, but not meeting 
with you, and hearing that you are expected to have an interview 
with the minister of Russia, to day, I drop you a few lines on that 

In the interview, I think that it will be proper, to extend your 
conversation & enquiries to every point, which seems to be embraced, 
by his note, & informal communication, with a view to make it the basis 
of all subsequent measures, either with Congress, or through Mr. 
Rush with the British gov' If you see no impropriety, in it, I think 
that I would ask him, whether he intended, by the terms " political 
principles " to refer to the governments established, in the new states, 
as distinguishing them from those of Europe. The strict import 
justifies the conclusion that he does, and that is supported by all 
the recent movements of the allied powers, in Europe. Still to give it 
that construction, without his sanction, in this form, might be ob- 
jected to hereafter. I merely suggest this for your consideration, 
to which I add, that if there be cause to doubt the propriety of the 
step, you had better decline it, for further reflection, especially as 
other opportunities will present themselves, in future conferences 
with him, on the same subject. 


On the other point I need add nothing at this time. Indeed I do 
not know that I can say anything, in addition to what was suggested 
on it yesterday. It is probable that something may occur in your 
conference, which may make it proper, to enlarge the sphere of the 
communication. (Signed) J. M. 

Dear Sir, — I enclose you a modification of your note in reply to 
that of the Russian minister for your consideration. The part for 
which it is proposed to be a substitute is marked with a pencil — 
tho' much of that thus marked is retained. You will be able to de- 
cide how far such a modification, will be proper from what may 
have taken place in your conference with the minister. The object, 
is to soften the communication in some degree, without losing any 
portion of the decision called for by the occasion. 

(Signed) J. M. 

Nov 1 : to, 1823. 

In the memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Volume VI, page 182, is 
the following concerning Baron de Tuyll : 

" An acknowledgment of the receipt of his note ; a statement 
that we had received and sent Ministers and Agents in our intercourse 
with the independent South American States, and should continue to 
do the same ; regretting that the Emperor's political principles had 
not yet led his Government to the same conclusion. I saw by the 
Baron's countenance that he was not a little affected at this statement. 
He took leave of me, however, in perfect good humor." l 

1 See Worthington C. Ford's Collection of Monroe papers in Massachusetts 
Historical Society Proceedings, Volume XV, pages 373 to 436, for the papers 
and documents referred to and reprinted verbatim in this appendix. 


Aberdeen, Lord, and the Venezuela 

boundary, 129 
Acha, Dr., President of Bolivia, 167 
Adams, John, his foreign policy, 86, 88 
Adams, John Quincy, interest of, in the 
Holy Alliance, 6, 13, 14, 19. 35. 4°>43> 5 1 ! 
interest of, in the Panama Congress, 55, 
57, 79 ; interest of, in the Monroe Doctrine, 
72, 92, 99-102, 109, 262; interest of, in 
the South American States, 151 ; commu- 
nications with Baron Tuyll, 315, 322, 323, 
327, 332 ; correspondence with Monroe, 

33°. 33 r > 334 
Aguero, President of Peru, 167 
Aix-la-Chapelle, Congress at, 3, 49 
Alexander I, and the Holy Alliance, 1-5, 47- 
49; and Greece, 50, 51 ; claim to Ameri- 
can coast, 95 ; and Prussia, 275 ; friend- 
ship for United States, 317, 31S, 321-326, 

3 2 9» 33 2 -334 
Alexander the Great, 311 
AU'aro, President of Ecuador, 176 
Alonzo, President of Bolivia, 167, 168 
Alvarez, President of Mexico, 162 
Amacuro River, Venezuela boundary, 129 
Ampudia, General, President of Mexico, 161 
Andalusia, 10 
Anderson, Richard C, and the Panama 

Congress, 57, 58 
Andrade, Ignacio, President of Venezuela, 

166, 225, 250 
Angouleme, Duke d', and the invasion of 

Spain, 3, 52 
Antioquia, secession from Colombia, 165 
Arango, J. A., and treaty of Panama with 

United States, 153 
Argentine Republic, 169, 172, 175, 177, 212, 

213, 218, 219, 263, 269, 270, 291, 299, 300 
Arias, Thomas, and treaty of Panama with 

United States, 153 
Arista, General, President of Mexico, 161 

Bacon, Augustus O., favors the Hay- 

Bunau-Varilla treaty, 156. 
Bailey, Joseph W., opposes the Hay-Bunau- 

Varilla treaty, 154 

Balfour, Arthur J., speech at Liverpool, 285- 

Balize, 60, 62, 63-65, 67-69 

Ballivian, General, ruler of Bolivia, 167. 

Balmaceda, President of Chile, 169, 177 

Baltasteros, defection of, 10 

Baltimore, Democratic Convention at, 105 ; 
Republican Convention at, 105 

Barcelona, fall of, 324 

Basily, at The Hague Convention, 205 

Bayard, Thomas F., and the Venezuela 
boundary, 129 

Bay Islands, 65-67, 73, 77, 78 

Behring's Strait, 95 

Benton, Thomas H., and the Panama Con- 
gress, 56 

Berbice, 128 

Berlin, 277, 281 

Berrien, John Macpherson, and the Panama 
Congress, 56 

Belzu, President of Bolivia, 167 

Bigelow, John, diplomatic correspondence of, 
74, 75, 122, 125 

Bismarck, Prince, 135, 275, 283-285 

Blackstone, on international law, 200, 201 

Blaine, James G., and the Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty, 148 

Blanco, General, 167 

Blanco, Guzman, 165, 255 

Bocachica, port blockaded, 25 

Bogota, 58, 164 

Bolivar, Simon, and the Panama Congress, 
55,'5S, 59,108, 109, 175,261; and Colom- 
bia, 163, 176, 295, 300; his opinion of 
South America, 256 

Bolivia, 167, 168, 175, 215,213, 263, 293, 299 

Bonaparte, Joseph, 3 

Borneo, Dr., President of Ecuador, 16S 

Bouvier, quotation from, 204. 

Bowen, Herbert W., and Venezuela, 274 

Bradford, Admiral, 113 

Bravo, General Nicolas, Vice-president of 
Mexico, 160, 161 

Brazil, 97, 133-139, 213, 273, 282, 299, 300 

Brent, and the Panama Congress, 56 

Brewer, David J., and the Venezuela boun- 
dary, 133 




Brown, James, Mission to France, 43 

Buchanan, James, 66, 67, 70, 71; nominated 
for president, 105 

Buchanan, William I., delegate to Mexican 
Conference, 219 

Buenos Ayres, convention between, and the 
Spanish commissioners, 22 ; refuses to co- 
operate with the Panama Congress, 58; 
secession from the Argentine Republic, 
169; recognized by the United States, 333 

Biilow, Chancellor von, and the Venezuelan 
affair, 282-285 

Buhver, Sir Henry, and the Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty, 64, 68, 69 ; sketch of his career, 76 

Bulwer, Lord Lytton, 77 

Bunau-Varilla, Philipe, and the Republic 
of Panama, 153 

Burdett, Sir Francis, 17 

Burnaby, Sir William, and the Burnaby 
Code, 61 

Burrell, Henry H., and contract with Salva- 
dor, 236 

Bustamente, President of Mexico, 161 

Bynkershoek, on international law, 116, 117 

Byron, Lord, opinion of Castlereagh, 51, 52, 


Cadiz, fall of, 23, 25, 324, 326 

Cxsar, 296, 305 

Calhoun, John C., and the Monroe Doctrine, 
72, 98-100 

Calvo, Carlos, on international law, 103, 21S- 
221, 226, 265, 266 

Calvo Doctrine, 218-266, 313 

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, and Vene- 
zuela, 278 

Campbell, Lewis D., minister to Mexico, 

Campeachy, 63 

Canalizo, President of Mexico, 161 

Cannes, Napoleon lands at, 1 

Canning, George, and the Holy Alliance, 6, 

7, I0 > '3» M, i7-34> 37-43 5 and the Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 9, 46, 51, 93, 100, 331 ; and 
the South-American colonies, 49, 50, 52- 
54; his far-seeing policy, 115 

Cape Verde Islands, application of the Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 302 

Caracas, Commission at, 283 

Carlotta, Empress, 125 

Carmack, Edward W., opposes the Hay- 
Bunau-Varilla treaty, 154 

Carrera, General, President of Mexico, 162 

Cartagena, and Colombia, 164 

Carvajal, President of Ecuador, 168 

Casey, Admiral Silas, protects the railroad at 

Panama, 148, 149 
Cass, Lewis, and the Monroe Doctrine, 6S, 

72 ; on international law, 239 
Castle Garden, 303 
Castlereagh, Lord, part in Holy Alliance, 

6 » 7, 49-5 2 > 93 
Castro, Cipriano, President of Venezuela, 

166, 174,224, 225, 249, 250, 268, 269, 274, 

Celman, Juarez, of the Argentine Republic, 

170, 177 
Central America, 58, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73 ; 

relations with United States, 144, 147, 

158; republic of, 171, 175, 176, 236, 297, 

299, 300 
Charlemagne, 142 

Chateaubriand, Francois Auguste de, 35 
Chile, 58, 80-S2, 167-170, 175, 177, 212, 

213, 263, 291, 299, 300, 333 
Cincinnati, Democratic Convention at, 105 
Clarendon, Lord, and the Bay Islands, 66, 


Clarke, James P., and the Panama treaty, 

Clay, Henry, resolution of, 47 ; interest of, 
in the Panama Congress, 55-57; and the 
Monroe Doctrine, 69-71, 109, no, 262; 
candidate for the nomination for president, 

Clayton, John M., and the Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty, 64 ; and the Monroe Doctrine, 68- 
71, 72 > ano ^ the Panama Congress, 75; 
sketch of his career, 77 

Cleveland, Grover, and the Venezuela 
boundary, 47, 130; and the treaty of arbi- 
tration, 1S0-182 

Cobb, Thomas W., and the Panama Con- 
gress, 56 

Coleridge, Lord, opinion on international law, 
200, 201 

Collins, Justice, and the Venezuela boun- 
dary, 131 

Colombia, 22, 25, 55, 58, 59, 148-150, 154, 

J 55> '57, '5 8 , l6 3- l6 5> '"5, 176, 213, 236, 
254, 261, 263, 272, 2S2, 293, 295, 299, 300, 

Colon, 145, 146, 150, 154, 165 
Columbia River, 95, 101 
Columbus, 304 
Comonfort, General, President of Mexico, 

119, 162 
Constant, Benjamin, part in Holy Alliance, 5 
Conventions : at Troppau, 3, 49 ; at Aix-la- 

Chapelle, 3, 49 ; at Laibach, 3 ; at Verona, 

3, 6, 51 ; at Vienna, 23, 48, 49, 117, 215; 



at Panama, 55, 56, 58,69-72, 75, 108-110, 
175. 261, 262; Whig, at Philadelphia, 76 ; 
Democratic, at Baltimore, 105; Demo- 
cratic, at Cincinnati, 105 ; Republican, 
at Baltimore, 105 ; Republican, at St. 
Louis, 106; Republican, at Philadelphia, 
106 ; Democratic, at Chicago, 106 ; Demo- 
cratic, at Kansas City, 107 ; Republican, 
at Philadelphia, 107; at Paris, 116, 117, 
179 ; at Geneva, 117, 215 ; at The Hague, 
117. 183, 197, 199, 205, 213-215, 299 ; at 
London, 121 ; at City of Mexico, 147, 206, 
212-214, 218, 219, 221, 258, 263, 296 

Cordova, General, President of Bolivia, 167 

Cortez, 136, 144 

Costa Rica, 147, 158, 171, 176, 213, 263, 

Crassus, 297 

Cremer, Mr., M. P., and a peace congress, 


Crespo, President of Venezuela, 166 

Crozier, Captain William, at The Hague 
Conference, 199 

Cuba. American interest in, 56, 57; 65; ap- 
plication of Monroe Doctrine to, 133, 290 

Culebra Mountain, 145 

Curtis, William E., letter to Chicago Record- 
Herald, 112 

Dalling, Lord, 77 

Daniel, 140 

Danish West Indies, projected purchase of, 

i4i-i43» 2 73 
Davis, Henry G., delegate to Mexican Con- 
vention, 219 
Dayton, William L., Minister to France, 

122, 138 
Demarara, 128 
Depew, Chauncey M., and the Panama 

treaty, 155, 156 
Devereux, General, 316 
Devonshire, Duke of, and the Monroe 

Doctrine, 279, 280 
Dewey, Admiral George, and the German 

naval commander, 133 
Diaz, Porfirio, President of Mexico, 162, 

163, 207 
Dickinson, Don M., decision of, 234, 241, 

Dominguez, Jose, and the Panama Con- 
gress, 58 
Dominica, 212, 213, 263 
Douglas, Stephen A., and the Clayton-Bul- 

wer treaty, 68 ; and the Monroe Doctrine, 


Drago, Dr., Minister of Foreign Relations 
of the Argentine Republic, 269; his views 
on coercive collection of public debts, 270 

Dura and d'Escar, Duchess of, and the Holy 
Alliance, 5. 

Ecuador, 163, 164, 168, 175, 263, 299 

Edict of Nantes, 305 

Edward VII, address of, 278 

Elba, Napoleon goes to, 1 ; Napoleon's escape 

from, foretold, 4 
Elizabeth, Queen, 304 
Esau, 2S5 
Espinoza, M ., and Panama and United States 

treaty, 153 ; President of Ecuador, 168 
Essequibo, 128 
Essequibo River, 12S, 129 
Estrada, Giuterrez de, and Maximilian, 123 

Fairbanks, Charles W., and the Panama 

treaty, 155 
Faustin I, Emperor of Hayti, 171 
Ferdinand VII, 3, 31, 326 
Field, Justice, opinion on Turkish contract, 

2 33 
Fiji Islands, and application of the Monroe 

Doctrine, 302, 303 
Fillmore, Millard, 68 
Fitzgibbon, Chief Justice William, and the 

Bay Islands, 66 
Florida, 90, 304 
Foraker, Joseph B., and the Panama treaty, 

Forsyth, John, and the Monroe Doctrine, 71 
Foster, Volney W., delegate to the Mexican 

Conference, 219 
Fox, Charles James, 51 
Francis Joseph, and Maximilian, 123, 126 
Francis of Austria, and the Holy Alliance, 2 
Frederick the Great, a friend of Washing- 
ton, 285 
Frederick William III, 1 ; and the Holy 

Alliance, 2 ; and France, 48 
Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., and the 

Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 148 
Fuller, Melville W., and the Venezuela 
boundary, 131 

Galatzin, Princess, and the Holy Alli- 
ance, 5 

Gallatin, Albert, iS, 43 

Garcia, Dr. Gabriel, President of Ecuador, 



Garfield, James A., 148 
Garrett, John, delegate to the Mexican Con- 
ference, 219 
Gelbtrunk & Co., in Salvador, 24S 
Genet, his insults to our government, 85, 88 
Geneva, Convention of 1864 at, 117, 215 
Gentry, Frederick yon, his definition of 

balance of power, 217 
Gloucester Lodge, residence of Mr. Can- 
ning, 19, 24, 27, 50 
Gonzalez, Manuel, President of Mexico, 163 
Gorman, Arthur P., opposes the Panama 

^treaty, 154 
Gouverneur, S. L., correspondence with 

Monroe, 332 
Grant, Ulysses S., and the Monroe Doctrine, 

82, 83, 112,303 
Granville, Lord, and the Venezuela bound- 
ary, 129 ; and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 
Greece, revolt of, 50, 51 
Greenland, and the application of the Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 302 
Grey, Earl, and the Holy Alliance, 17 
Grey, Sir Charles, 66 
Grey, Sir George, and the limits of Balize, 

Grier, Chief Justice, 152 
Grotius, 117 
Gual, Pedro, and the Panama Congress, 5S, 

Guatemala, 56, 65, 171, 176, 212, 213, 263, 

Guerrero, President of Mexico, 160, 161 
Guitterez, Santos, President of Colombia, 


Hale, Edward Everett, resolution at 
Lake Mohonk Conference, 182 

Halleck, on international law, 238 

Hamilton, Alexander, his ideas on expan- 
sion, 86, 87, S9, 90 ; as a statesman, 139 

Hanna, Mark A., and the Panama Canal, 
146, 157 

Harrison, Benjamin, message of, 179, 180 

Hartzell, Bishop, his offer of a coaling sta- 
tion, 113 

Hasse, Professor, and the Venezuelan affair, 
283, 284 

Havana, 61 

Hawaiian Islands, and the application of the 
Monroe Doctrine, 302 

Hay, John, interest in Panama, 153 ; and 
The Hague treaty, 197, 199 ; and inter- 
national arbitration, 270, 271 

Hayne, Robert C, 56, 72 

Hayti, Republic of, 58, 171, 172, 213 

Heidelberg, residence of Mme. de Krudener, 

Henry IV of France, and the Edict of 

Nantes, 305 
Herrera, President of Mexico, 161 
Hertling, Baron von, and the Venezuelan 

affair, 281 
Hobhouse, 17 
Holy Alliance, The, 2-7, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 

3 1 , 33, 3$, 47-54. 59, 7°, 79, 93, 95, 9$, 

100, 130, 132, 325 
Honduras, British, 61, 64, 65, 68, 139 
Honduras, Republic of, 66, 67, 78, 171, 172, 

176, 213, 263, 294 
Houston, "Sam," 71 

Iceland, and the application of the Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 302 
Iglesias, President of Mexico, 162 
Ingham, and the Monroe Doctrine, 71 
Iturbide, Augustin, Emperor of Mexico, 
159, 160, 171 

Jackson, Andrew, and the Monroe Doc- 
trine, 71, 72 ; and the Panama Congress, 
75 ; nominated for president, 105 ; and 
Bustamente, 161 

Jacob, 285 

Jamaica, 62 

James I, 304, 305 

Jamestown, 304 

Jecker, 120 

Jefferson, Thomas, correspondence with 
Monroe, 39-44 ; and the Louisiana Pur- 
chase, 86, 92, 155 ; letter to, from Wash- 
ington, 87 ; foreign policy of, 88, 89 ; 
letter to Livingston, 90 ; messages of, 90; 
and the Monroe Doctrine, 112 ; as a 
statesman, 139 

Jolly, Captain, 66 

Jones, Henry, case of, v. United States, 103, 

Juarez, Benito, President of Mexico, 119, 
120, 124, 126, 127, 162 

Kamschatka, and the application of the 
Monroe Doctrine, 302 

Kilpatrick, Judson, letter to, from Seward, 

King, William Rufus, and the Clayton- 
Bulwer treaty, 69, 72 



Ki'.nisberg, Battle of, 275 
Kriidener, Baron de, and the Holy Alliance, 4 
Kriidener, Madame de, and the Holy Al- 
liance, 4, 5 
Kruger, President, 184 

Lafayette, Marquis de, letter to, from 

Washington, 87 
Laibach, Convention at, in 1S21, 3 
Lamar, General, President of Peru, 167 
Larrozabal, Antonio, and the Panama Con- 
gress, 58 
Leo XIII, 125 

Lerdo, President of Mexico, 162, 163 
Lesseps, Ferdinand de, and the Isthmian 

Canal, 144-146 
Leyser, Dr., 137 
L'Huys, Drouyn de, 138 
Lieven, Count, and the Holy Alliance, 13, 26 
Linares, President of Bolivia, 167 
Lincoln, Abraham, and Mexico, 75 ; nomi- 
nated for president, 105 
Lisbon, 326 
Liverpool, Lord, 17 
Livingston, Edward, letters from Jefferson, 

89, 90 
Lodge, Henry Cabot, and the Monroe Doc- 
trine, 133 ; and Panama, 155 
London, Convention at, in 1S61, 121 
Lopez, General, and Maximilian, 126 
Louis XIV, and the Edict of Nantes, 305 
Louis XVIII, and the Holy Alliance, 1, 2 
Louisiana, 89, 90, 92 
Low, Seth, at The Hague Conference, 199 

Macintosh, Sir James, denounces the 

abolition of privateering, 17 
Madison, James, 39 ; message to Congress, 

91, 92; 112 
Madrid, 327 
Magnas, Baron, Prussian Minister in Mexico> 

Mahan, Captain Alfred T., at The Hague 

Conference, 199 
Malina, Pedro, at the Panama Congress, 58 
Manhattan Island, founded by the Dutch, 305 
Manila, 133 

Marquez, President of Colombia, 164 
Marroquin, President of Colombia, 149 
Marshall, John, as a statesman, 139 
Martens, Professor, on the Venezuela Boun- 
dary Commission, 131 ; at The Hague 

Convention, 205 
Mason, James M., and the Clayton-Bulwer 

treaty, 68, 73 

Matos, member of Andrade's cabinet, 166, 

Maximilian, Emperor, 74, 105, 121-127, 

132, 13S, 143, 162, 272 
McDuffie, George, and the Monroe Doctrine, 


McKinley, William, on the Convention in 
Mexico, 218, 220 ; and the Spanish-Amer- 
ican War, 2SS 

McLane, Louis, 71, 72 

Mejia, General, 126, 127 

Melgarejo, President of Bolivia, 167 

Mendez, Pedro Briceno, and the Panama 
Congress, 58 

Merida, 61 

Merou, Dr. Garcia, 269, 270 

Metternich, Prince, in the Holy Alliance, 

Mexico, 24, 34, 57, 58, 74,75,81,84,88, 
98,101, 105,109,117, 119-127, 132, 138, 
139, 143, 144; revolutions, 159-161 ; 163; 
and Central America, 171 ; indebtedness 
per capita, 172; quasi monarchy, 174; 
and the confederacy of South American 
States, 175 ; 177, 206, 207, 211, 212, 213 ; 
war with United States, 232 ; 236, 291, 

2 93, 2 99. 3 00 > 3°3> 333) 334 

Mexico, City of, International Conference 
at, 147, 206, 212-214, 21S, 219, 221, 258, 
263, 296 

Meyer, Dr. Herman, 137 

Michelena, Jose Mariano, and the Panama 
Congress, 58 

Miramon, General, 119-121; President of 
Mexico, 126, 127 

Mississippi River, 89, 90, 92, 312 

Mohonk, Lake, Conference at, on Interna- 
tional Arbitration. 1S2 

Money, Hernando D. S., and the Panama 
treaty, 156 

Monroe, James, correspondence with Richard 
Rush, 14, 27, 37, 39, 40, 50; and the 
Monroe Doctrine, 44, 53, 69, 70, 72, 75, 
80, S2, S3, 85, 92, 93, 95, 97-101, 13°. 
316, 317, 319, 320, 323, 329, 330, 333- 
335 ; and the Panama mission, 79 ; corre- 
spondence with JohnQuincy Adams, 151, 
330, 331 ; correspondence with Jefferson, 
331 ; correspondence with S. L. Gouver- 
neur, 332 ; message of, 334 

Morales, General, 22 

Morat, 65 

Moreno, President of Ecuador, 168 

Morgan, John T., and the Panama treaty, 154 

Moroco River, 128, 129 

Morris, 332 



Moscow, burning of, i 

Mosquera, President of Colombia, 164 

Murtinho, Dr., 13S 

Nantes, Edict of, 305 

Naples, revolution in, 323 

Napoleon I, conquered by the Allies, 1-4 ; 
correspondence with Metternich, 48 ; trea- 
ties with United States and Spain, 89 ; 
sale of Louisiana, 91, 142 ; and Prussia, 

275» 3 11 
Napoleon III, 123, 125 

Navassa, Island of, 104 

Nebuchadnezzar, 140 

Negrete, General Pedio Celestrio, 160 

Nesselrode, Count, 13, 26, 320-324 

Newell, Stanford, at The Hague Conference, 

Newenham, Sir Edward, letter to, from 

Washington, 86 
New Granada, 64, 144, 153 ,155, 163-165, 175 
New Zealand, and the application of the 

Monroe Doctrine, 302, 303 
Ney, Marshal Michael, 1 
Nicaragua, 146, 147, 149, 158, Wh 176, 2 ^3> 

263, 264, 266 
Nicholas I, and the Holy Alliance, 47, 4S, 51 
Nicholas II, issues invitation to The Hague 

Convention, 1S3 
Noboa, Diego, President of Ecuador, 168 

Olney, Richard, 47, 130; and the Vene- 
zuela boundary, 2S0 
O'Neill, General, 63 
Orinoco River, 128, 129, 131 

Pacas, Jose Rosa, Chief Justice of Sal- 
vador, 241, 249 

Pacose, ]. Rosa, President of Central Amer- 
ica, 176 

Paez, General, 59 

Paine, Thomas, letter from Jefferson, S9 

Pana, Luis Sanez, President of Argentine 
Republic, 170 

Panama Canal, 144, 146, 148, 149, 19S, 26S, 
272, 273 

Panama Congress, 55, 56, 5S, 69-72, 75, 
10S-110, 175, 261, 262 

Panama, Republicof, 150, 153, 154, 157, 165 

Panama, State of the Isthmus of, 164, 165 

Panama, Town of, 145, 150, 154 

Pando, General, President of Bolivia, 168 

Paraguay, 169, 170, 175,212, 213, 263,264 

Parana River, 128 

Paris, entry into, by Allies, 1, 2; residence 
of Mme. de Krudener, 4 ; Congress of 1856, 
1 1 6, 117 ; place of meeting for the Ven- 
ezuelan Commission, 131 ; meeting of the 
Isthmian Canal Directors at, 145 ; Peace 
Congress at, 1 79 

Patos, Island of, seizure of, by Great Britain, 

Pedraza, Gomez, President of Mexico, 160, 

Pedro II, Dom, 134-136 

Penfield, William L., opinion of laws of 
Salvador, 242-244 

Penn, William, 84 ; colonies of, 305, 306 

Pepper, Charles M., delegate to the Mexican 
Conference, 219 

Perdido River, 91 

Peru, 34, 58, 167, 175, 212, 213, 263, 299 

Phelps, Edward J., correspondence with 
Thomas F. Bayard, 129 

Philadelphia, Whig Convention at, 76 

Philip II, 144 

Philippines, and the application of the Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 312 

Piedmont, revolution in, 3 

Pierce, Franklin, 68 

Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth, letter from 
Hamilton, 89 

Pitt, William, 51 

Planta, 32 

Piatt, Orville H., and the Panama treaty, 

Plumer, William, extract from his diary, 99, 


Plymouth Rock, 304-306 

Poinsett, Joel R., 57, 71, 72, 109, 262 

Polignac, Prince de, and Spanish America, 
27, 28, 49, 50, 52, 53 

Polk, James K., views on the Panama Mis- 
sion, 69, 71, 73 ; and the Monroe Doctrine, 
75, 83, 96-99; message of Congress, 97- 
99; and the Isthmian Canal, 144 

Pompey, 297 

Pownall, Governor Thomas, his book on this 
country, 88 

Pozzo, address to Ferdinand, 31 ; goes to 
Madrid, 36 

Pradt, Abbe de, 58 

Puerto Cabello, bombarded by the British 
and German navies, 267, 268, 281 

Puffendorf, 117 

Punta Barima, 128, 129, 131 

Quebec, 74 
Queretaro, 126 



Randolph, John, 56, 332 

Ranvegna, Colombian minister to England, 

25, 26 
Recamier, Madame, 5 
Rio Hondo, 62 
Rives, William C, 72 
Robles, General Francisco, Dictator of 

Ecuador, 168 
Roca, General, President of the Argentine 

Republic, 170, 177 
Rogers, Lieutenant, and the Isthmian Canal, 

Roosevelt, Theodore, and Panama, 154-156, 

165 ; and The Hague treaty, 197, 199; and 
the Mexican Conference, 217; and Vene- 
zuela, 274 

Rosebery, Lord, and the Venezuela boun- 
dary, 129, 284, 286 

Ruatan, 65, 66 

Rush, Benjamin, signer of the Declaration 
of Independence, 6 

Rush, Richard, and the Holy Alliance, 6 ; 
and Spanish-American affairs, 7, 9, 13, 
14, 19, 21, 27, 31, 34, 37-40, 50, 51, 53 ; 
correspondence with John Ouincy Adams, 
100-102, 334 

Russell, Lord Chief Justice, and the Vene- 
zuela boundary, 131; opinion on inter- 
national law, 201 

St. George's Coy, 63 

St. Helena, 2 

St. Petersburg, despatch from, 281; de- 
parture of the Emperor from, 321 

Salavery, Dictator of Peru, 167 

Salisbury, Lord, and the Venezuela boun- 
dary, 47,129-131, 280 

Salvador, 171, 176, 212, 213, 225, 22S, 234- 
242, 248, 249, 263, 266, 294 

Samoan Islands, and the application of the 
Monroe Doctrine, 302 

San Carlos, 268 

San Domingo, 65, 82, 172 

Sanfuentes, 169, 177 

San Juan, seizure of, 73 

Sanloque, President of Hayti, 171 

Santa Anna, General, 160; President of 
Mexico, 161, 162 

Santa Catharina, 137 

Santa Cruz, President of Bolivia, 167 

Santander, and the Panama Congress, 58, 
109; President of Colombia, 164, 261 

Schleswig and Holstein, Duchies of, 142, 217 

Schomburhk, and the Venezuela boundary, 
128, 129 

Sergeant, John, and the Panama Congress, 

57, 58 
Seward, William H., and Mexico, 74, 84, 

87, 122, 124, 126, 138 ; and the Monroe 

Doctrine, 75, 85, 132; despatch to, from 

Kilpattick, 80; letter to Kilpatrick, 82; 

and Brazil, 139 
Sheldon, Daniel, Jr., and South American 

affairs, 19, 36 
Sheridan, General Philip H., sent into 

Texas, 124 
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 51 
Short, William, correspondence with Jeffer- 
son, 89 
Siberia, and the application of the Monroe 

Doctrine, 302 
Siboon River, 62 
Simmons, Furnifold McL., and the Panama 

treaty, 156 
Slaughter House Cases, 307 
South Shetland Islands, and the application 

of the Monroe Doctrine, 302 
Spencer, Earl, and the Venezuelan affair, 279 
Staal, at The Hague Convention, 205 
Stapleton, quotation from his "Life of 

Canning," 52 
Sternberg, Minister, and the Venezuelan 

affair, 283 
Stewart, Sir Charles, and Spanish America, 

19, 2S, 29 
Strong, Sir Henry, Chief Justice of Canada, 

decision of, 234, 241, 249 
Sucre, General, President of Bolivia, 167 
Swayne, Justice, opinion of, 233 

Tacubayo, 59 

Taylor, Zachary, cabinet of, 64, 68 ; army of, 

71; as president, y^ > as general, 76 
Teller, Henry M., and the Panama treaty, 


Tennyson, quotation from, 183. 

Terminus, god of the Romans, 310, 311 

The Hague Convention, 117, 183, 197, 199, 
205, 213-215, 299 

The Hague Court, 279 

The Hague Tribunal, 199-204, 212, 216, 
2 57-259, 272, 274, 276, 301 

Tillman, Benjamin R., and the Panama 
treaty, 154 

Tilsit, peace of, 275 

Toro, Manuel Murillo, President of Colom- 
bia, 164 

Treaties: 1648, of Munster, 12S; 1763, be- 
tween Great Britain and Spain, 61, 65 ; 
1783, between Great Britain and Spain, 62» 



65; 1786, between Great Britain and 
Spain, 62-66 ; 1790, between Great Britain 
and Spain, 101 ; 1800, between France and 
Spain, 89 ; 1S00, between France and the 
United States, 89; 1814, between Great 
Britain and Spain, 63-66 ; 1819, between 
Spain and the United States (Florida 
treaty), 101; 1S26, between Great Britain 
and Mexico, 64; 1845, between Spain and 
Venezuela, 128 ; 1846, between the United 
States and Great Britain, 96 ; 1S46, be- 
tween the United States and New Granada, 
144, 153-155; 184S, between the United 
States and Mexico (Guadalupe Hidalgo 
treaty), 71, 72 ; 1S50, between the United 
States and Great Britain (Clayton-Bul- 
wer treaty), 64, 66, 68, 73, 77, 78, 146- 
148; 1856, between Great Britain and 
the United States (Clarendon-Dallas 
treaty), 14S; 1856, between Russia and 
the Allies, 217; 1859, between Mexico and 
Spain, 120 ; 1864, between Germany and 
Denmark, 142; 1S90, treaty of inter- 
national arbitration (not ratified), 179 
180; 1899, The Hague treaty, 183-199, 
205-207, 212-216, 258-260, 271, 276, 284, 
290, 295-297, 299; 1901, between Great 
Britain and the United States (Hay- 
Pauncefote treaty), 146, 148; 1902, treaty 
of compulsory arbitration between ten 
South American States, 208-213, 290, 
295, 296; 1902, between the United States 
and Denmark -(not ratified), 141, 142; 
1902, between the United States and 
Colombia (outlined but not ratified), 148, 
268; 1903, between the United States and 
Colombia (Hay-Herran treaty, not rati- 
fied), 149, 15S; 1903, between the United 
States and Panama (Hay-Bunau-Vanlla 
treaty), 153, 156, 157 
Troppau, congress of the Holy Alliance at, 

3. 49 
Turkey and the Revolt of Greece, 50, 51 
Tuyll, Baron, correspondence with John 

Quincy Adams, 100, 315, 316, 319-324, 

3 2 7, 3 2 9-33 2 - 335 

Urbina, Dictator of Ecuador, 168 
Uruguay, 169, 170, 172, 175, 212, 213, 264 

Valparaiso, burned by the Spanish fleet, 

Van Buren, Martin, and the Panama Con- 

gress, 56, 72, 79; and the Monroe 
Doctrine, 73, 80 ; nominated for vice- 
president, 105 ; and New Zealand, 302 

Vattel, on international law, 102, 103, 116, 
117, 217, 247, 267 

Velutini, J. A., President of the senate of 
Venezuela, 224 

Venezuela, 114, 117, 128-131, 163-165, 175, 
176, 184, 198, 212, 213, 215, 222, 225, 22S, 
2 34, 243, 245-247,249, 250, 254,257, 258, 
266-268, 271-275, 278, 2S1-284, 2S7, 294, 
297, 299 

Vera Cruz, 74, 121 

Veragua, seceded from Colombia, 164, 165 

Verona, Congress of the Holy Alliance at, 3, 
6, 51 

Victoria, General Guadalupe, President of 
Mexico, 160 

Vienna, Congress of, 23,48, 49, 117, 215 

Villele, M. de, 35 

Von Biilow, Count, 240 

Wallace, naming of Balize, 60 

Washington, George, and the Monroe Doc- 
trine, 72, 82 ; our foreign policy, 85-SS, 
92; as a statesman, 139; Farewell Address 
of, 312 

Waterloo, battle of, 2, 4, 51 

Webster, Daniel, and the Monroe Doctrine, 
69; candidate for nomination for the pres- 
idency, 76 

Weitinghoff, Baron, 4 

Wellington, Duke of, 51 

West Indies, 24, 67, 86, 113, 114 

White, Andrew D., at The Hague Confer- 
ence, 199 

Wildenbruch, Ernest von, 277, 281 

William I., 142 

William II, and Brazil, 135; and our for- 
eign policy, 140; and Venezuela, 281 ; 
friend of United States, 285 

Wilson, Henry, nomination of Taylor, 76 ; 
and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 148 

Woolsey, President, and the Monroe Doc- 
trine, 97 

Yucatan, 97-99, 160 
Yuruari, Territory of, 129 

Zabadua, 64 

Zeloya, President of Nicaragua, 176 

Zuloaga, General, 119 















3 & 


i — 






Do not 
re move 
the card 
from this 

Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. " Ref. Index File."